posted by Joe Polk at 11:28 AM /
We received a comment from someone this morning stating "I'm glad to see you're allowing anonymous postings again". I'm not quite sure why someone thinks that, but Mike and I have definitely NOT started allowing this again.
Unfortunately, I had to decline this new comment because it was posted as "anonymous". As you can see, we've had some great discussion in the "Does Lebo Spend Too Much on Schools?" posting, but none of those comments have been anonymous -- so I'm not quite sure what this morning's commenter was referring to.
Thanks again to everyone that visits our site on a daily/weekly basis. We appreciate you reading our blog, but please make sure to put your name on all comments submitted.
Unfortunately, I had to decline this new comment because it was posted as "anonymous". As you can see, we've had some great discussion in the "Does Lebo Spend Too Much on Schools?" posting, but none of those comments have been anonymous -- so I'm not quite sure what this morning's commenter was referring to.
Thanks again to everyone that visits our site on a daily/weekly basis. We appreciate you reading our blog, but please make sure to put your name on all comments submitted.
3 Comments:
Joe, actually, there is someone who wished to remain anonymous that gave something to Mike and he posted it on their behalf and kept their name out of it. Perhaps that is what this person was reading.
Keep up the good discussion on the blog.
James
Joe, if you've read through the comments on school board spending, you can see instantly what the anonymous writer was referring to -- Mike posted substantial portions of 2 anonymous emails he received, on the basis that because he was willing to use his name, they weren't really anonymous. BUT, he's wrong, and it's a slippery slope I don't think your blog wants to go down. For example, the last anonymous comment has an angry emotional tone and some inflammatory language that I suspect the writer didn't want his neighbors to realize came from his keyboard. By quoting it verbatim and at length, Mike takes what was being a very civil discussion to a different level -- one I no longer care to participate in. This should not be about name-calling or attacking people who disagree with your position. By hiding behind an anonymous person, Mike can agree with the content but disavow the language, which I suspect he would not use himself, but which does have the effect of intimidating people who disagree. Continue your no anonymous comments policy please -- and enforce it fully, which means no quoting anonymous emails. If you want to agree with an anonymous comment, put it in your own words. Thanks.
Thanks, Carol, for appearing on the blog both on this post and on the school costs post.
For the record, I disagree both with your characterization of the comments in question and of my role and right to adopt them under my own name. I don't plan to make a habit of doing this (thus, there's little to no risk of a slippery slope, and the camel's nose is *not* in the tent). I also think that it's fair to do this, and it would be a waste of my time to expect that I paraphrase a comment that I otherwise agree with or think is worth making. Sometimes, what someone else writes or says is not only just as good as your own words -- it's better.
There is no way that every conversation on the blog will make everyone in town feel warm and fuzzy about civil discourse. Freedom of speech, even managed freedom of speech, means that some people will be uncomfortable, and some of those will opt out.
Right now, talk about taxes and school budgets and home values hits especially hard in a town that is more caught up than most in outward displays and inward beliefs regarding what it means to be "high status." "Status" is expensive, but it's no longer clear that the town or its residents necessarily has all the money needed to pay all the bills. (I'm writing metaphorically, of course.) Status anxiety may lead some of the "have more" to suggest that the "have less" should put up or leave town. That's bound to cause unhappiness. The "have less" have a lot at stake here, too. I hope that no one on the blog or in Mt. Lebanon disagrees, but there is no way for me to know.
Post a Comment
<< Home