I have just had an exchange with Rabbi Oliver regarding my moderation of comments. I will simply post the exchange and hear the responses. The question is simply whether all negative comments about the Lubavitcher Rebbe have to be suppressed or is it sufficient for me to edit out the obnoxious comments but post the remaining comment to show both that someone has strong feelings about the matter and two that I will block obnoxious comments. If it is generally felt that it is better to block the entire comment as Rabbi Oliver is demanding - I will implement that policy. On the other hand if editing out the obnoxious comments is acceptable than I will maintain the current policy.================
Rabbi Oliver wrote:
"he wanted absolute power"?! That wasn't edited out. The whole tone of the letter is the exact opposite of respectful dialogue and mutual understanding that you say the blog is intended to promote. I'd appreciate it if you'd write a blog post making this clear, just as you did (several times!) complaining about what you believed to be Herschel's inappropriate language.
2008/8/27 Daniel Eidensohn
I edited out the obnoxious words and made sure that it was obvious that I edited the comment. I think it is more respectful to post an edited comment than to block it entirely. Other comments that I could not edit I have blocked.
However if I get a few more letters like yours I will agree to block them altogether.
--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Yehoishophot Oliver
From: Yehoishophot Oliver
Subject: Re: [Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity] New comment on Chabad - Respects non-Chabad gedolim?.
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 3:40 PM
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
Why do you allow such posts through at all? This is nothing but blatant lies and disgrace of a great Tzaddik and talmid chochom. I thought you respected the Rebbe and wanted to do something to reduce sinas chinom, not increase it?
Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Chabad - Respects non-Chabad gedolim?":
>>A total lie. The Rebbe was tolerant of the approach of others, and always encouraged them in their derech, saying nahara, nahara upashtei.
YOu have been caught already on twisintg the truth, and here you are clearly lying. The Rebbe clearly expressed that those who did not learn Tanya are missing something upstairs. That is intolerance toward other people. 
>>What totally twisted nonsense.
I know, what the Rebbe said was totally [edited] And you are twisting the above passage too, as we will show.
>>Actually, the Rebbe had full respect for the custom of other groups to sleep in sukkah, and never ever dismissed it, ch"v.
This was not the issue. The issue was the Rebbe's incredible [edited] toward those who thought he was wrong--calling them, for example, messengers of the Satan, and, in another instance, accusing the gadol hador of not wearing kosher tefillin.
>>He always said about all other groups' minhogim: "nahara, nahara upashtei." On that occasion the Rebbe was upset at those who sought (and still seek) to DISCREDIT the Rebbeim of Chabad for following the minhag not to sleep in sukkah, as if they are violating Shulchan Aruch ch"v, when they have their halachic reasons for this custom.
The halachic dispensation for not sleeping in a sukkah and the so called minhag not to sleep in one are two completely different things. One is enshrined by halacha and the other is shtus, hevel, and was never supported by anyone.
>>The Rebbe pointed out then that Litvishe gedolim throughout the generations had peaceful, friendly interactions with the Rebbeim of Chabad, and certainly never spoke against them in this way, and that those who promote this question are simply introducing flames of machlokes for no reason!
The rebbe [edited] had nothing to do with any charedi group. And the friendly interactions with chabad stopped because the rebbe refused to have anything to with them, ostensibly because he wanted absolute power.