News-Record.com

Life online used to be easy to maintain anonymity and there were so few employers online it was doubly safe to use the old "anon-penet" system. Nowadays, there are subpoenas. I respect a user's right to be anonymous; however, not sometimes. Like in Letters to the Editor. If the writer gives up his/her identity, then the responders should as well. Perhaps you can enforce "no anonymous comments in the Letters blog" as a rule. That should cut down on the total number of trolls that the N&R online edition sees.

But in the general blogosphere, I respect anonymity when people understand that it's not that hard to figure out who they are these days. That's a risk they take.

I have no problem with posting with my name (although their are roughly 18 Don Moore's in Greensboro), it's an old tradition: Never say anything that you wouldn't say to a person's face.

There is a place for anonymous posters - whistleblowing is one aspect that comes to mind. Another is for the pure entertainment, like Mr. Sun. Unfortunately, there will be trolls. They will go away if you don't feed them.

I think you should leave it, and all matters related to the newspaper, up to Jerry Bledsoe to decide. You're welcome.

The whole conversation on anonymous blogging at Allen's blog was precipitated by his deciding to quote and link to an anonymous blogger (name of Chewie) to venomously trash an opinion column you guys ran in the print paper. This isn't about anonymous bloggers per se or about anonymous comments. It is about Allen Johnson using an anonymous blogger in a thoroughly unethical way. Anonymous bloggers can say whatever they will at their sites -- and possibly never have to stand up to public scrutiny because they hide behind a "handle" -- but that doesn't mean a newspaper should invite such people into its domain. It's obvious that Allen doesn't like criticism of your paper's practices but you really should examine where you stand.

Ombud, I think Allen's action was entirely proper. A pseudonymous blogger criticized him for publishing a column. He didn't invite her in. He responded and explained. That's sort of the way it works in the blogosphere.

Totally with you on the Allen's actions. I'd also like to point out that having a handle doesn't mean anything. I have one. I often use it also. However, anyone that knows me, also knows me by my handle and my real name.

If you really want to get right down to it, ban proxy servers (if you need a list, I can get you one), and print the first 3 digits of the IP... like... 255.255.255.x

While you can't be identified, I'd be curious to see how many people would still post under the pretense that there is actually no anonymity on the Web. Or you could always make it so people would have to use typekey registration (since your blogs can do that). Just turn it on.

I blog anonymously and I don't think that means I lack the courage of my convictions. I have specific reasons why I am anonymous. I will identify myself via email to anyone who asks. I also don't think WHO says something is as important as WHAT they say. Does a person have greater credibility if they are a CEO rather than a janitor? The answer may be yes if we are relying on specific facts and information. Chewie was expressing an opinion.

I will admit that I give more weight to something someone says when I know who is saying it. So, I admit it. I'm elitist!

There is value in anonymity. Anyone remember "Deep Throat?"

Back over on Allen's blog, the argument (Jerry and one anon poster, mostly, with me :) revolves around Chewie's vehement crit of a column's opinions and her stance that there's racism by the writer who is otherwise a good guy. (My take, my opinions are my own.) I think the problem there is one of disagreement with an opinion and NOT with anonymity (which is being used as a front). However, John's idea that trolls are bothering the blogs is real and faced by many historically. There are blog-comment-spam blockers to use and I hope your new online software/platform enables them. I don't agree with Ben's "reveal their IP" idea but I do agree that you should consider blocking proxy servers.

jw is also right; being anon is a right and protects the writer (somewhat, be careful jw!).

Bill Maher calls them "new rules." Blogs fit here; new rules will govern them over time. Blog god Dave Winer has blogcon rules and Chapel Hill's blogcon "violated" one of them and I didn't care. So much for rules. (And I respect Dave.) Things change. Above, I said that responders to letters, where the writer is identified, should not be anonymous here. I still think that.

But not in Allen's blog. That's opinion, this is a small town, and old problems survive. In addition, bloggers have the right to assume pen names and Jerry's comments (other blog) that serious writers don't use them is, I think, historically inaccurate (women use them more than do men, methinks). Think Star Trek. DC Fontana. A woman couldn't have sold scifi scripts back then.

Long story short: the rules are changing. One overriding rule doesn't work anymore and we'll struggle till we find the result that works for this town square. The struggle is worth it; look at all the great commentary John can take to his next meeting :)

My parents asked me to change my name- I was in my 30's at the time- due to my letters to the editor regarding abortion. Now I am 50 and thankful for the blog revolution.

There are only 2 Chip Atkinson's here. One is a missionary in training down in Columbia, SC. I am here, praying if God calls me to the mission field, it will not be a 3rd world country...

Let me rephrase on my anonymity comment. What I was proposing was due to the fact that there is nothing currently in place. N&R is using a MT base. They can drop a lot of the anonymous trolls, simply by enabling TypeKey.

Since they do not, the IP solution is the other way. There is nothing to say you cannot still use a pseudonym, or hide behind a handle. What bugs me is when people post with "nothing" and try to act like several different players on the field.

It's just a way around the problem, similar to registration. Mr. Sun/jw/Chewie could still post.

Note that currently, there is nothing stopping me from posting as Chewie, Mr. Sun, or whomever. Just type in the name, email.. and go with the flow. See where I'm going with this?

I should have had more faith in Ben. He's right. I can post as Ben and Ben can post as me without an IP check. Damn, call Herb!!! We need a geek on this and I don't know your new software platform (WHEN is it going online??)

Hey! Who you calling geeky!!! oh wait... never mind.

Perhaps a disclaimer would help as there is no real way to enter the Blogosphere and require that everyone use their real name.

Fact is: Allen was seeking to inspire conversation and with Jerry's help he did just that. I'd say it was a job well done and hope to convey my thanks to Allen and Jerry. Thanks Guys.

Also, see my last post at Allen's blog, the one signed, Not really Jerry Bledsoe, just using his name.

I think you'll agree.

By the way, this is Billy The Blogging Poet, AKA: Billy Jones, and not John Robinson

I appreciate the suggestions. I'm actually less concerned about Chewie. She uses a pen name, but she's easy to reach and converse with. She's expressing legitimate opinion.

What I'm trying hammer out are the issues around people who drop in, make a variety of false statements as if they are fact -- as many people do about this newspaper -- and then don't hang around to explain themselves.

I respond with the facts or challenge them to produce evidence, but I often end up sounding defensive. I e-mail them off-line to try to get more information, but the e-mails are undeliverable because the addresses are fake. So I'm chasing people who carry no responsibility or accountability for their comments.

I doubt there's much to do about it, but still...

What Sue and Ben point out, and Billy demonstrates, is a very scary thing that could quickly spiral out of control.

I don't know anything about the technical aspect of the IP check, but either that or requiring verification by email before being able to post seems like a very good idea for the new software.

Is it doable?

John,
Please explain why you are not concerned about the charges Chewie makes against Chuck Forrester on your website. Can you show that he doesn't like black people, that he is a bigot and a purveyor of hate speech for expressing his views on Nov. 3, as she maintains? You are concerned about false charges against the paper but not against people who express themselves in its pages?

I didn't say I was not concerned, Jerry. I said I was less concerned. I don't think Chewie's remarks were "charges" against Mr. Forrester. I also didn't read Chewie's remarks on our site as saying all the things you think she does.

It seems to me that John was clear he was talking about "hit and run" untruthful comments and not protracted discussions (which is what the blogs are for, IMO). It's become apparent to me that he's not talking about anon posters who stick around and talk.

I think the light struck me early this a.m. John, are you talking about moderating these blogs? Perhaps removing posts that are troll-like or otherwise incendiary without basis in fact or thoughtful opinion (and you're the judge and jury)?

Sue, I'm sorry that this is what you're thinking about in the early a.m. I'm not talking about moderating the blogs. There are tremendous legal responsibilities surrounding that, to say nothing of the time consumed by staff members. I'm just pondering the discussion and looking for suggestions, as Ben has proposed.

I'd probably say, require TypeKey. It doesn't protect you to the full extent to say that you would get rid of trolls completely, but it is the easiest and probably one of quickest ways to bring that number down, if that is what you're looking for (quickest, and the less time consuming way). There are other types of methods, like banning proxy servers and such, but a registration scheme should at least be enough to deter most people that are tryin to cause trouble.

I can't help what runs through my early-morning mind :) After reading the link you posted to the BizWeek site, I reaffirmed my belief that you have every right to moderate or remove offensive posts. It's your space and there are community standards. Just as I hope (and assume) you'd remove or edit a racist or epithet-filled post, blocking troll-spam can be done automatically with a fair degree of success. A typepad key is good; I'd have to see your new software to see if it works.

I still vote (FWIW) that you require names on Letters discussion and Ben and I both moderate discussion boards where a username MUST be tied to a verifiable address. (Of course, you have to include good security for that info.)

A town-square thought: does everyone have the right to post on N&R boards/blogs or is it a privilege? That might determine how you want to approach drive-by incendiary trolls.

As I'm sure you have an N&R Internet policy, you probably need one here. Then, those who want to play can adhere to posted rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

John - Please note that I also posted this on Allen Johnson's blog as a response to the thread on the Chuck Forrester discussion.

I have followed the discussion over anonymity on blog sites with interest.

Everything I know from my degree in journalism and just plain common sense is screaming,"Danger, Will Robinson, danger!"

While "citizen journalists" have every right to host blog sites and offer people who post on the sites any degree of anonymity that they choose, I believe that the News & Record, and the blog sites that you sponsor, operates under a different set of standards. Although your blogs offer all of us the opportunity to expound, expose or express further opinions on a topic (and maybe even learn something along the way), they are still extensions of the News & Record and similar standards appropriate to a newspaper of your quality should be continued here.

I recognize that the N&R is venturing into uncharted territory and that much of what you are doing involves creating your own waypoints as you go. However, the potential for allowing people to post random acts of accusations, innuendos and personal character attacks seems not only fraught with endangering your credibility in this venture, but sets the stage for the possibility of damage to the victim since a posting to a newspaper blog carries with it some of the reputation of the paper itself.

Further, there is a difference between anonymously given OPINION and anonymously reported "FACT" or INNUENDO. In your blogging policy, you ask your readers to "please attack ideas, not people. Personal attacks have no place here. Also, please present factual information and cite sources where appropriate." Is this something that you are prepared to enforce?

You might determine that anonymously posting an opinion may be fine: it stands or falls on its own. However, a reported "fact" must get its credibility from somewhere. It is getting that credibility from the newspaper?

There is a place for anonymous posting...Chewie, Billy the Blogging Poet, Ed Cone, GateCity and others offer thoughtful and well-written blog sites that give anyone the chance to comment and post to their heart's delight. The N&R, however, is in a different category.

I would encourage you to adopt a policy of having your blog posters identify themselves through whatever technology you deem the most appropriate. Not doing so opens the door for a very ambitious effort to turn into "The Click of the Return Key"... something that smacks of the internet version of "The Sound of the Beep." And as a long-time reader of the N&R and a new fan of your blog sites, I would hate to see you go there.

Terri Obermeyer

Jerry,

You have sparked a fascinating and important conversation about anonymous bloggers and commenters, here and at Allen's blog.

But you go beyond criticizing anonymous and pseudonymous writers to challenging Chewie's critical skills, which in this case seem quite well honed.

Forrester says, "As a former elected official myself, I have never heard any black elected official at any level in the state of North Carolina say a positive word about race relations here or anywhere. And why not? Because they don't want to lose the leverage of white guilt."

Also, apparently forgetting the Klansmen who did the killing: "(D)enying the Communists were solely responsible for the whole bloody event Nov. 3, 1979, was then, and is now, a big, fat lie."

I don't think the anonymity of another of Allen's commenters detracts at all from the power of his or her comment: "Is it just me or was there a big sucking sound where an indignant response to Chuck Forrester should have been heard?"

Signed,

yr. friend,

Ed

Ah, Ed, you wily one.

You’re trying to pull me in, aren’t you?

Actually, I tried to post a comment at your site, but got back a message that said “forbidden.” I’m sure that this is just another blip of blogging technology that I'm unable to grasp and wasn’t anything personal. You know that I hold you in high esteem, even though you are often misguided. Anybody who loves his dog as much as I love mine is a mighty fine person in my view.

Now to the big sucking sound that appears to have entranced you.

I didn’t say anything about the anonymous Chewie’s critical skills. I did point out that it was unfortunate that she chose to make a personal attack on Chuck Forrester for the piece he wrote about Nov. 3. Essentially she branded him as a racist and hate monger. Obviously you and many others agree with her.

You single out this quote from Forrester's piece: “As a former elected official myself, I have never heard any black elected official at any level in the state of North Carolina say a positive word about race relations here or anywhere. And why not? Because they don’t want to lose the leverage of white guilt.”

Before I go on, let me add a little personal background here. I covered battles between Black Muslims and the Klan in Alabama for Esquire, and was threatened and followed wherever I went. I was in the midst of all the rioting that went on for days in Winston-Salem after the assassination of Martin Luther King. I was shot at and had bricks and bottles thrown at me. I was standing beside a black police officer at a George Wallace rally in Durham when he was attacked by Klansmen with chains and clubs, and I watched in shock and horror as his fellow white officers turned their backs on him. I got to know Howard Fuller, the founder of Malcolm X University, and when black students seized the administration building at Duke, I was poking around behind the building, peeked through a basement window, spotted Howard and tapped on the glass. He saw me and opened the window. “Can I come in,” I asked. “If you can climb through this window,” he said. “They’ve got desks piled up against all the doors.” I crawled through and was there for the remainder of the siege, along with Nelson Johnson, I recently learned. When the students discovered that police were massing in full riot gear to assault the building, they pulled back the desks and emerged from the front door, running as a group, fists in the air, shouting, “black power!” I was running right along with them, notepad in hand, got gassed beside them and was chased, retching, into the bushes by a club-swinging cop in helmet and gas mask. B. Elton Cox was a friend of mine. He was one of the Freedom Riders. One of the major civil rights decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court was filed in his name. He used to drop in and sit by my desk until I finished a story, and we would talk about the demonstrations that were going on, reminisce about the Freedom Rides and all that he had experienced. By sheerest coincidence, our paths had crossed earlier, although neither of us was aware of it at the time. I arrived at the bus station in Montgomery only minutes after the attack on the Freedom Riders bus there. I witnessed the chaos, the broken glass, the blood.

I bring all of this up for one reason. I have experienced vicious racism first-hand. I have seen and heard genuine hate speech. So I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that the quote you cite is fairly innocuous.

Let’s look at what Forrester says. He’s never heard an elected black official say anything positive about race relations. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I have either, not that it matters. He goes on to offer a reason: they don’t want to give up the leverage of white guilt.

Do black leaders use race and racial division for advantage? Can anybody doubt that’s happened repeatedly in Guilford County? Does white guilt make that possible? Does it even exist? You should be an authority on that, Ed. Wealth guilt, too, maybe.

I sincerely ask that you, or Chewie, or Roche, or somebody, tell us exactly why this is racist hate speech. If this were truly that, do you think Allen, of all people, would have put it in the paper?

I’m not claiming to have any greater insight on this than anybody else, but it seems to me that if we are ever going to come to terms with race, if there is ever to be a serious and wide-ranging topic of community conversation about it, every dirty and distasteful aspect of it has to be examined and all viewpoints tolerated, even though lots of people on all sides aren’t going to want to engage them. This whole business of branding views that you don’t like as hate speech and the people who speak or write them as racist is just another form of McCarthyism. Cry “racist” and “hate speech” and viewpoints can be declared invalid and dismissed. Unfortunately, that’s become all too common on blogs, and even in the News & Record.

It strikes me as high irony, Ed, that you and Chewie, who are the most prominent proponents of Truth and Reconciliation on local blogs--and you in the News & Record as well--are the first to begin hurling insults when somebody offers a view contrary to yours about Nov. 3. You present yourselves as open, liberal, progressive, but want to banish viewpoints you don’t like and condemn the people who hold them. What kind of racial reconciliation can be possible with this kind of reaction? None, of course. Matters can only grow worse and appear to the headed that way. Surely, that's not what you want.

Okay, you pulled me in. Your turn. No fair shrinking away. And, please, spare me the blogger's retreat from any serious discussion: “He just doesn’t get it!.”

Jerry,

As noted, I think the conversation about anonymity is important, and your points and those you have elicited from others are giving me much to ponder on that subject.

But you are correct, I did want you to go beyond that to address the column by Forrester, and I appreciate your willingness to focus on what some might see as the actual issue at hand.

I don't recall hurling any insults, although if you want to charge me with guilt by association for saying Chewie was right to lambaste Forrester in a post that did hurl a few I guess I'll cop a plea.

(On the subject of insults, I'm a little surprised to be told I want to banish anyone's viewpoint, since I'm the one who wants all this stuff put down in a report. I'm not much on white guilt, or wealth guilt, either -- those are insults you chose to hurl.)

It's interesting that a reporter of your bona fides managed not to notice the second Forrester quote I cited, the one where the folks who got shot and killed were soley responsible for their fate.

Your hard-earned knowledge of violent racism must allow you to recognize the attitudes that might undergird it -- say, a former elected official making blanket negative statements about black elected officials, and excusing the killings of people with whom he disagrees.

Signed,

Ed

Jerry Bledsoe writes: "I sincerely ask that you, or Chewie, or Roche, or somebody, tell us exactly why this is racist hate speech."

Who is Roche and where did he claim this was racist hate speech?

I'm pleased to see that the smoke has cleared. The anonymity debate is an important one, especially for the News & Record. But throughout this thread, I've felt that we were not talking about what we really wanted to talk about, and now, we are.

Jerry, the background you provide is fascinating. You obviously have seen ugly racism up close and in action. Your personal experiences as a reporter of those events hold value for this and other local discussions about race. I welcome your insights on the current state of things, especially given the historical context you have.

I believe the reason you found yourself at odds with many on this thread and at Allen's blog is that your starting place seemed inaccurate. As a wordsmith yourself, surely it did not escape your notice that I never called anyone a "bigot" or a "racist hatemonger." I don't believe I've ever used those labels to describe anyone, as I've never known anyone who actually deserved them.

There's a tough, independent-minded crowd here, highly intelligent and motivated, who require fairness above all else. Rest assured that if I were to mischaracterize something you, Allen, Ed, Chuck, Florence, Gov. Schwarzenegger, or anyone else said, they would call me on it. An anonymous commenter asked about accountability on the web; that's it in a nutshell.

I stand by my read of the content on both the editorial page and the online comments of the News & Record on April 27th. Others are free to read the same material and reach a different conclusion. I maintain that expressions of opinion on any side of any issue do not need to devolve into racist stereotyping and untruths.

I expressed the wish, and do so again, that the N&R would devote more space to constructive debate. There are opponents to the T&R process who have considered, thoughtful, serious concerns that deserve to be heard in the community.

Forrester has every right to his opinion that the T&R process is "absurd" and "desperate". But he should expect response, particularly when his facts require correction. He did start down the road of some good points, such as the many reviews of the incident that have already taken place.

My comments were not a personal attack, but an expression of distaste for Forrester's narrow characterization of blacks, his use of labels that expired 20 years ago, and the News & Record's policy of publishing editorials that contain untruths without any disclaimer. Others here found Forrester to be "just a bit over the edge", "blatantly bigoted", and "incredibly racist and intolerant". Their words were stronger than mine.

I would welcome any clarification Forrester cared to offer. I should think he might want to mend some fences. The next time he and Mel Watt are in the same room, for instance, does Forrester want to be pointed out as "the guy who said you'd never say anything positive about race relations, because you want to leverage white guilt"?

I daresay the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus might take issue with that, and he would do so in a way that was at once more elegant and more authoritative than mine.

Congressman Watt recently quoted an eloquent phrase from a Bush speech on No Child Left Behind that may be applicable here: "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

We don't have to stoop to trying to deceive each other, insult each other, or dehumanize each other in order to debate these issues. In the best case scenario, we will continually remind each other that we need to speak as we would like to be spoken to. I don't mind the reminder I received here on this thread, and sing the praises of Allen, John, and the News & Record for hosting our charette.

Here's hoping that this discussion raises all boats, on all sorts of issues, in our Town Square.

There is a quote from one of the speeches of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that speaks very eloquently to exactly what was wrong with society and government and journalism in his day . . . and what remains wrong in ours.

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was NOT the vitriolic words or the violent actions of the bad people, but the appalling silence and indifference of the good people.

Our generation will have to repent not only for the words and acts of the children of darkness, but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light."

Roch,
I meant to say Jay, whom I had addressed about this at Allen’s blog, but somehow I typed your name and added an inadvertent e. I didn’t realize I had done it until I saw your post. I apologize. It may have happened because I was considering submitting that response to Greensboro 101, since you had featured Ed’s remarks there. But who can explain the workings of an ancient and cranky brain at 2:30 in the morning after a long and tiring day?

Ed,
I owe you an apology, too. The guilt remarks were cheap shots. This medium makes cheap shots too easy, and sometimes irresistible. I hope you will forgive me.

Chewie,
Welcome back to the conversation you started. You sure fooled me that your comments were not a personal attack on Chuck Forrester. It appears that you fooled Allen, too, and maybe Ed and others.

My starting point, which you say is inaccurate, was Allen’s post at his blog in which he took a quote from your blog that he considered to be a response to his publication of Forrester’s piece about the T&R commission. This is part of that quote: “I fail to understand why Allen Johnson writes with such considered insight, then lets vultures sweep in and unload excrement all over his pages.” Since Forrester piece was the only one in question, that would appear to make him one of those vultures unloading excrement. That sounds a little harsh and more than a little personal, but that may just be me.

I grant that you never used the word “bigot” or “racist hatemonger.” But let’s look again at what you did say in response to Allen’s post: “…all I gleaned from Forrester’s comments is that he doesn’t like or trust blacks and Communists. Add Jews to that list, and you have the KKK manifesto.” A white person who doesn’t like or trust blacks is a bigot by definition. You gleaned that about him and tossed in a strong KKK innuendo to reinforce the point. Once again, sounds awfully harsh and very personal.

Some have pointed out that I used a Klan comparison myself, and I’m glad they noticed. I included that bit of irony to demonstrate that innuendo can work both ways.

You went on to say that Forrester had some of his facts garbled and closed by saying, “Hate speech doesn’t deserve equal space and time, and neither do lies.”

Since the only material in question was Forrester’s once again it would appear that the hate speech and lies to which you were referring were Forrester’s. Otherwise why bring it up? And a person using hate speech generally is a hate monger.

If I have misunderstood and misinterpreted you, I apologize, and I point out all of this one last time only to show why it might have happened.

Here’s where I agree with you completely: “We don’t have to stoop to trying to deceive each other, insult each other or dehumanize each other in order to debate these issues. In the best case scenario, we will continually remind each other that we need to speak as we would like to be spoken to.”

Now, if I didn’t fear offending somebody, I’d suggest that everybody involved form a circle and sing Kumbayah—just as long as I don’t have to hold hands with Mr. Sun.

Jerry,

With your rational explanation, it's a lot easier to see where these kinds of conversations can fly off the tracks. With a few final thoughts, maybe we can all sign off on this thread, though John will no doubt miss us terribly.

I didn't single out Forrester's piece at first, but made general remarks that the April 27th News & Record editorial section gives the impression that we are an incredibly divided, angry city: a false impression, in my view. I made the point that those with racist views in Greensboro are few in number, and that most of us are quite civil.

Here are some excerpts from the Letters to the Editor comments that day:

"I wish both sides would have brought guns. That way, all of these miserable racists could have been buried on the same day."
Posted by: greg at April 27, 2005 09:00 AM

"The Klan came out on top, just too bad all participants on both sides didn't meet their demise, as you said. It would have been nice for both sides to have ceased to exist after that day."
Posted by: Kilgore at April 27, 2005 09:58 AM

This wasn't the first time I've lamented the tone on these pages, as found here and here and here.

When the discussion turned to Forrester, my remarks got more specific as well. I don't suppose we need to take it word for word, but here is how he starts out:

"Because the Communist Workers Party and its friends insist the need exists for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to ferret out some heretofore undiscovered truth about Nov. 3, 1979, a few thoughts..."

The CWP (USA) dissolved in 1985. It no longer exists, and therefore has no friends. Even if it did still exist, the idea that the CWP, poster child for violent rhetoric and disruptive tactics, would touch a Truth & Reconciliation Commission with a ten-foot pole is hard to conjure.

So I found that first statement, along with some others he made, to be irresponsible and unnecessarily inflammatory. I didn't imagine that that opinion would lead to such a long, but ultimately informative and entertaining thread.

It seems we were both recoiling from what we considered to be inflammatory language. If we're not careful, they will start requiring the first three numbers of our IP addresses just to ensure that we are not, in fact, the same person.

I will gladly join the circle in anticipation of the informed, reasonable debates we can inspire in the future. I would suggest that we stick Mr. Sun in between John and Allen, and ask that he lead us in song in his ancient native tongue.

Just about the only thing missing so far seems to be a response by Chuck Forrester to the criticism his piece has inspired.

It would be interesting for Forrester to expand upon or clarify points that have been pinpointed for dissection by others.

Through the dialogue that has taken place, some fascinating points and counterpoints have been made. Humor has sometimes been injected. Strong labels and accusations have flown.

But the tone has also evolved some among some of the principle players in this conversation.

There is an unscripted process at play that Blogging seems to have facilitated.

There is a lot more to be said by both the current players and the uninitiated.

Can someone invite Forrester to join this dialogue, this process of open communication?

Can we invite elected officials (city council members, school board members, even county commissioners) to join in?

Perhaps more importantly, can we invite to the Blogging table all the "everyday people" (famously referred to by Sly and the Family Stone and later Arrested Development in their lyrics)?

(Some "everyday people" are of course already present. Will others recognize the value of joining the process?)

Before our very eyes, people whose ideas and very existences seem foreign have the potential to become more fully developed human beings, filled with varying doses of the good, the bad, and the ugly. And don't forget the beautiful.

Everybody now...

"Kumbaya, my Lord.. kumbaya."

What the!... keep your hands to yourself Sun... that's JR's butt you're pinching, not Chewie's...

"Kumbaya, my Lord.. kumbaya...." (repeat)

Oh, this is taking a nice turn. After Hoggard's comment, I'm ready to require anonymity!

As a longtime Control Freak of truly Olympic proportions, I grudgingly make an exception on issues of free speech and completely endorse the "best answer to hate/inflammatory/false speech is *more* speech" aphorism.

Let's leave Chuck Forrester and Chewie out of this for now and play make-believe. Imagine in our community two groups of people: bigots, and radicals. They exist, I think we can all agree. Now, imagine two styles of journalism: bureaucratic, and decentralized. The bureaucratic style would have first edited a bigoted opinion piece and polished off the edges. That same style would also have limited online comment based on factors including, but not limited to anonymity. The decentralized style would have allowed a bigoted opinion piece to speak in its own voice. That same style would have permitted online comment to reflect the reaction of the community.

Comparing these two styles, which gives citizens a more accurate picture of the fault lines that exist in our community, and by extension a chance to build a bridge across them?

It does us no good to reduce difficult debates to a watered-down pretend play starring two fictional characters: "the reasonable citizens."

How about that? A constructive dialogue on Truth and Reconciliation.
I agree with Hardy. Why won't Forrester say what he has to say in a setting where there is a live and free exchange of ideas? A dialogue like this one.
I believe that he has written three op-eds on T&R thus far. Why can't he bring himself to take all those bottled-up feelings and present them in person?a good thing to And her husband in Hong Kong Then he said And then in our In a day when I am not going
I'm only slightly jealous that our conversation took a nicer turn here, rather than over at my place.

ht

This current blog discussion is great. Not to burst this important blogging bubble but blog discussions exclude a lot of folks in our community.
It would be wonderful if we could expand this conversation with the help of Allen Johnson and John Robinson. What if the N&R structured several community conversation on the issues surrounding Nov. 3rd and the pros and cons of the T&R Commission? They could invite some people to represent some of the different points of view and allow them to have a brief conversation and then have community questions and more conversation. A real town hall meeting sponsored by the N&R. We may actually start realizing we have something to gain and share by directly talking about the issues. Wow! the democratic press may not be so bad after all. So far the blogs have pushed and prodded us towards better conversations about Nov. 3rd let's just keep expanding that conversation. Maybe a first step could be to invite Chewie, Mr. Sun, David Hoggard, Ed Cone, Roch Smith, Jim Capo, Sam Hieb, Billy, Jerry McClough etc..etc. for the first discussion. Then we could all at least find out if Chewie and Mr. Sun really exist

They don't (exist that is). I bet we're going to find that Hogg made them both up and has been acting out some MPS issues he had as a kid. *grin* Hogg? did I get it right?

John, can you see Allen from your desk? Right in the middle of his last post he began channeling an anonymous blogger, and I'm just a bit concerned.

To Ben's observation. Take Young up on his suggestion and invite Chewie, Sun and me and I'll summon all three of us to show up - The SunChewHog.

Mr. Sun says above: "Comparing these two styles, which gives citizens a more accurate picture of the fault lines that exist in our community, and by extension a chance to build a bridge across them?"

Damn right, Sun. If we can't speak openly, frankly and SINCERELY about issues such as this, we might as well all shut the hell up. Guarded, watered-down conversations that challenge nothing and reveal nothing are social masturbation instead of the more satisfying social intercourse that we all, hopefully, seek.

I've always despised political correctness.