News-Record.com

"I just regret that he won't discuss them in person at one of the T&R dialogues."

Allen ... in fairness, why don't you regret that this anonymous "Chewie" doesn't have the courage to use her real name as Chuck Forrester does in openly discussing his opinions of this issue?

Allen,
Since you are quoting from and linking to Chewie's response, shouldn't you also post Forrester's piece?
Or am I missing it?
Jerry Bledsoe

Allen excerpted something from my blog, where I write as Chewie. If I wrote a Letter to the Editor or an Editorial, as Forrester did, I would do so under my real name.

Posting here or to my blog using my real name would be disingenuous, as I am accountable, and have a track record, as Chewie. That way you can research things Chewie has said in the past and measure Chewie's current statements against them.

If I posted using my real name, I would be accused of trying to hide my true identity as the blogger known as Chewie.

And here is Chewie's response to Allen:

"I agree that opposition to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission should get equal space/time. I would like to hear from someone who has their facts straight, has examined the process, and found some real reasons they can share about why this is bad for our community.

Instead, all I gleaned from Forrester's commentary is that he doesn't like or trust blacks and Communists. Add Jews to that list, and you have the KKK manifesto. I'm shocked that someone of his high public profile felt safe in expressing those biases on the editorial page.

Like many other opponents of the TRC, he has some of his facts garbled (such as his imagination of how the CWP changed the march's starting point -- it's listed on the parade permit issued by the Greensboro Police as "Carver and Everitt Sts".)

Hate speech doesn't deserve equal space and time, and neither do lies."

You can find that here, as you can all of my past blog posts, and comments elsewhere.

http://chewok.blogspot.com

Well, well, well, Allen, here's where the News & Record blogs may actually grow interesting. Could this be a point that determines whether journalism and blogs actually can mix?

You have allowed an anonymous blogger, one Chewie, whom you consider to be "thoughtful", but who clearly doesn't have enough courage of her/his convictions to identify herself/himself, to claim that a former public official, Chuck Forrester, has the mindset of a Klansman, is a liar, a vulture, a spreader of excrement and purveyor of hate speech.

Since none of your readers can know who this "thoughtful" Chewie is, or even if she/he actually exists, this makes the News & Record the actual agent of these defamatory charges.

Can you prove them? Are you concerned at all about making them? Is this guttersnipe stuff what the News & Rcord is striving for?

Will you issue a retraction and an apology? If not, it could become a really interesting situation if Forrester filed the first libel suit against a newspaper over anonymous blog defamatations.

Allen,

I agree with Jerry Bledsoe that it would be better to post Chuck Forrester's op-ed so that people who have not read it in the newspaper can have access to it.

I've noticed that the Counterpoint columns are always included at the "Letters to the Editor" Blog but that op-ed pieces are inconsistently posted.

If possible, it would seem ideal to choose a Blog (probably yours or the "Letters to the Editor" Blog) at which all of the op-ed pieces would be made available.

I had mentioned this before, but it would also be nice to have Charles Davenport Jr.'s and Rosemary Robert's columns posted.

The same is true for a couple of other News & Record columnists whose pieces do not appear on the editorial pages (such as Ed Hardin and Lorraine Ahearn).

These individuals may not want to have their own Blogs set up under the News & Record umbrella, but it would be nice to have a place where readers could find and respond to their columns.

I found Forrester's tone more offensive than his opinions. As someone who has in the past represented the citizens of our community, Forrester displays an arrogant attitude toward a portion of our population (not just Communists and blacks) that is disturbing.

There are even some points that Forrester makes that are worth discussing and possibly considering.

But those points get lost among statements such as this one: "Finally, denying the Communists were solely responsible for the whole bloody event Nov. 3, 1979, was then, and is now, a big, fat lie."

"The Communists were SOLELY responsible"?

That quote alone makes Forrester sound like a big idiot. (I borrowed "big" but not "fat" from Forrester's "big, fat lie" comment.)

The Communist Workers Party did some stupid things. Agreed.

Right off the bat, titling their march "Death to the Klan" was at best unwise and at worst was an open invitation for violence to occur.

But once the Klan members showed up, pulled out weapons, and began using those weapons, they became equal participants who were AT LEAST EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for what occurred next.

One thing I find disturbing is that some people suggest that the people who were killed got what they deserved.

Some comments even suggest a certain degree of celebration about the deadly outcome.

There are individuals out there who will never commit murder themselves but seem to take blood-thirsty pleasure from the knowledge that certain fellow human beings have been killed.

I wonder if these people consider themselves to be Christians.

If so, they may have more in common with some Muslims than they realize.

Forrester criticizes Nelson Johnson for having called the Klan "scum" and "two-bit cowards" and promising "we will show you no mercy."

Hasn't our own president basically made similar comments about international terrorists?

I look forward to Forrester's next piece in which he will no doubt criticize President Bush for directing such confrontational comments toward those terrorists.

It is also fascinating that while some people label both the Communist and Klan groups as negative, a greater level of criticism seems directed at the Communists.

It says a lot about America that so many of our citizens seem to have stronger attitudes against Communists than against Klan members.

Some white Americans have criticized blacks for giving Communism at least some consideration, failing to take time to ponder why they might have done that.

It was OK for white Southerners not only to consider breaking away from the Union but actually to try to do so.

But it's not OK for blacks to have even considered other options than what America once had to offer them.

White Southerners provided arguments to defend the legitimacy of their cause (some still do, even today), but I'd love to hear anyone claim that white Southerners had more legitimate gripes against America than blacks had.

Next to what white America had to offer blacks in the past, ANYTHING DIFFERENT probably had at least an ounce of appeal, and for good reason.

I do not believe the Klan holds rallies and parades as often as they once did, but the Nov. 3rd precedent should be heartening to any blacks (or others) who want to show up at one of those get-togethers, pull out weapons, and fire away, killing as many Klan members as they can.

I am sure, under such circumstances, people will focus on criticizing the Klan for holding an event that might inspire people to show up and rain on their parade with violence.

I am confident, under such circumstances, that should a trial result in the murderers of Klan members not being found guilty, we will happily accept such a verdict and move on peacefully and comfortably into the future.

I'll end by saying that I am personally glad that the decision was made to print Forrester's piece.

Sincerely,

Hardy

I found Forrester's comments to be blatantly bigoted.That he felt so comfortable to publically express this bias shocks me like a racial or dirty joke told expecting everyone listening to be equally racist or profane. I am quite surprised that an editorial disclaimer for factual accuracy wasn't offered. I think this style of expression leads to greater misunderstanding and misinformation. Would you give the klan or a terrorist a space without rebuttal or disclaimer? Forrester wasn't associated with this debate and has no special insights so I'm surprised at his ability to get so much ink.

"Posting here or to my blog using my real name would be disingenuous, as I am accountable, and have a track record, as Chewie."

The N&R would not publish a letter from someone whose identity is a mystery. Why the double standard? In what way is an anonymous blogger "accountable" ... and to whom?

I want to speak in defense of Chewie blogging anonymously. I too blog anonymously and those of us who do, do so for various reasons. In my case I sometimes write about sex and sometimes use vulgar language. I am anonymous to spare my children. I will identify myself to anyone who emails me and asks.

But what I'm trying to understand here is why Jerry feels Chewie lacks the "courage of her/his convictions." To me, what's most important is WHAT is said, not WHO is saying it. If it turns out that Chewie is the CEO of a big company or a local elected official, would her/his words carry more weight? What if it turns out Chewie works in the cafeteria line at a local elementary school or as a custodian at the mall? Are the points made less valid?

I have no difficulty determining whether commentary made is "thoughtful" simply by the words spoken. Mr. Sun is no less brilliant because he's anonymous. Chewie is no less thoughtful because he/she is.

"To me, what's most important is WHAT is said, not WHO is saying it. If it turns out that Chewie is the CEO of a big company or a local elected official, would her/his words carry more weight? What if it turns out Chewie works in the cafeteria line at a local elementary school or as a custodian at the mall? Are the points made less valid?"

Here's a different what-if: What if Chewie is affiliated with the Truth & Reconciliation project/commission? Question for Allen: Do you know if this is or is not the case?

I'll let Chewie decide whether or not to disclose her secret identity (do superpowers come with that?), but I can affirm that she exists and has a real name, having met her at a couple of recent events for Greensboro-area bloggers.

Readers may infer from this fact that other local bloggers know she exists and know her secret identity as well.

I do not know what, if any, connection she has to the T&RC; the subject didn't come up at the time.

I stand by our decision to publish Chuck Forrester's piece.
To not do print it because I disagree with his views would be unfair and disingenuous.
Chewie has taken issue with some of Chuck's facts. Interestingly, both sides are hurling accusations about "lies" and what really happened.
Sounds like another argument for why revisiting Nov. 3 holds value.
On the issue of confusion and deception over the parade route, the permit secured through the Greensboro police clearly stated that the march would begin at Everitt and Carver streets but posters indicated the march would "assemble" at Windsor Center at Lee Street and Benbow Road.
Like it or not, Chuck's voice is needed in this discussion or it's not much of a discussion at all.
I don't know how productive it would be to stipulate ahead of time what that voice should say.

I hope that Chuck Forrester will decide to appear before the T&R Commission. His voice represents the voice of many in our community. In this process somehow we must honor all voices and let folks know that the voices of all interested people are needed to get a better understanding of the reality of Nov. 3rd 1979 and April 2005.

In the third trial in 1985 U.S. District Court Judge Robert R. Mehrige gave frequent instructions to the jury that they would be refusing their sworn duty if they allowed labels like Klan, Nazi, Communist, police or federal agent to influence their judgment. Mehrige was the first judge to treat all the folks involved with some significant fairness and dignity.
The T&R process needs to be welcoming to all.

John,
Since Allen won't answer the question submitted by annonymous blogger, perhaps you can. Is Chewie affiliated with the T&R project or task force? Thanks.
Jerry Bledsoe

Jerry, I honestly don't know. As is the case with most bloggers who use "handles," I have not met her personally (to my knowledge). But you can ask her yourself on her blog.

Allen ... Why not have Chewie answer the TRC affiliation question right here where her comments on this issue reside, rather than make readers go search her out on the blogosphere? It seems only fair.

OK, good suggestion. Now, since we're on this accountability and affiliation kick, who are you?

Allen ... I'm a Greensboro transplant of some dozen years with a very deep background in journalism. I'm not affiliated with anybody. (And I'm not Jerry Bledsoe, either!) All I have done here is to ask an innocent journalistic question: Is this anonymous blogger Chewie affiliated with the TRC? You quote her and link to her blog, and the content one finds at that blog would make anybody curious about whether she is. Frankly, I find your lack of curiosity strange for a newspaperman.

Nope, I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me. I speak only for myself.

Thanks, Chewie. Now that we've subjected you to scrutiny over your views, it seems only fair for the rest of us to come clean as well.
After all, if your background and affiliations inform and influence your opinions about Truth and Reconciliation, what about ours?
Let's start with me. No, I am not associated with T&R. I am,however, a Greensboro native who was in graduate school during the Nov. 3, 1979 shootings.
I have never been a member or been affiliated with the Communist Party.
I am an unaffiliated voter ... have been for more than 20 years.
I am journalist, an opinion writer for the News & Record.
I like broccoli.
The problem is, why must only Chewie have to disavow and/or clarify her relationships when the rest of us haven't had to?
If we agree to that standard, no anonymous commenter's views ought to matter, should they?

Allen,
Thanks for posting Chuck Forrester’s piece so that all can judge for themselves. I also think the News & Record did a real service by offering at Inside Scoop the podcasts of the city council session on the truth and reconciliation decision, as well as documents such as Claudette Burroughs-White’s email to the rest of the city council. I hope that will continue

Chewie’s response above is not clear. Does the “nope” mean that she is not affiliated in any way with the T&R project, task force or commission, or just that she doesn’t speak for them nor they for her?

Chewie has been an informed and passionate proponent for T&R at her blog and others, which raises the question of affiliation. If she does have a connection, her virulent attack on Forrester becomes highly significant. If people who come forward with views about Nov. 3 are apt to find themselves branded as bigots and hate mongers by people connected with the project, then the process is undermining itself, and the commissioners might as well pack up and go home without submitting themselves to the grinding and incredibly difficult task that lies before them. Who more timid that Chuck Forrester would dare submit to such treatment?

Even if she has no affiliation with the various and confusing elements of T&R—project, task force, commission, which sometimes appear to be working against themselves—Chewie’s ill-chosen but telling words do the commission no favors and present a sad indication that genuine reconciliation is an elusive prospect.

Now to the matter of anonymity. Chewie’s defense doesn’t wash. All of us, but especially journalists, should be wary of people who won’t stand by their own words, who cloak themselves in secrecy to launch vicious attacks for which they cannot be held accountable. Remember that the Klan usually went about its nefarious deeds under hood and robe.

If anonymous views are as valid as those of people who stand behind their words, as you seem to indicate, why don’t you allow unsigned letters in the print edition? Why are anonymous comments allowed only in this little blogging hideaway? Why the double standard? Readers deserve answers to these questions.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Jerry Bledsoe said so eloquently. Is there a difference between what the N&R is doing and what the Rhino Times has long been ridiculed for doing with its unsigned letters and anonymous "beep" comments? Will somebody -- anybody -- please address the question of accountability posed earlier?

Chewie: "Posting here or to my blog using my real name would be disingenuous, as I am accountable, and have a track record, as Chewie."

Question: In what way is an anonymous blogger "accountable" ... and to whom?

r your thoughtful (and journalistic in the Excellent and thoughtful

oops ... sorry for the garble at the end! An editing malfunction.

Pardon me if I can't overlook the glaring irony of the above anonymous commenter expressing concern about anonymous comments and accountability.

I agree with the last anonymous commenter and pose the question to Jerry. Have you challenged your occasional employer, John Hammer, to explain the Beep? It smears and defames public personalities weekly.

As for anonymity, I won't speak for Allen, so don't interpret this as N&R policy. I also wouldn't say that anonymous views are as valid as those who sign their names, and I don't think Allen said that. (I think there are degrees of anonymity. There are those who are immediately above me on this thread who don't even attempt to leave a name, and then there's Chewie, who has a web site, who has e-mail and whose identity many people apparently know.)

The business of people grasping for anonymity on the Web annoys me, too. I think people should sign their names. However, I understand that it is a different medium than the newspaper. It has different traditions; anonymity being one. The Web also permits immediate conversation and allows people to challenge fact and opinion. Unlike letters to the editor, where there is at least a 24-hour cycle and more likely a 30-day cycle, discussion and fact-checking can occur almost instantaneously. As someone said, it's self-correcting. Does it make a difference that you don't know Chewie's real name? Heck, for all I know, that IS her real name and she's faking everyone out. In any case, she's here and debating the issue.

Allen ... You're upset that someone might simply ask you questions without signing their name ... and at the same time you see nothing wrong in aiding and abetting an anonymous blogger's personal attack on a person who wrote a piece for your paper. Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Another anonymous one chimes in to pose a question. My occasional employer, John Hammer? I was always under the impression that employment involved payment of some sort. I never have been employed by John Hammer, nor have I received so much as a dime from him. I have, however, known John for 25 or 30 years, and he was gracious enough to publish a half a dozen pieces I wrote for which I had no other local forum. Do I approve of the Rhino's anonymous Beep? No. I've been a victim of it myself. Do I approve of the Rhino's anonymous letters to the editor? No. Does John give a whit? I doubt it. I suppose I could start a blog now, but frankly I'd rather post at the Rhino. Far more readers there.

The point remains that you seem exercised by the News and Records practice on anonymous posts, but you don't seem bothered by the same at what you say is the more widely read Rhino's. What's more, you doubt Hammer cares what you think anyway. (I wonder why you think Mr. Johnson does.) In fact, you say you prefer writing for the Rhino, a publication that routinely defames. How very interesting. Yes, sign me anonymous. I have seen how you abuse those who disagree with you.

Jerry and others,
For starters, I am against this T&R Commission but think Forrester is just a bit over the edge. (Several are saying the same about me.)

As for Chewie: Many bloggers are uncomfortable with identifying themselves online. After all, there are a lot of strange and downright scarey people trolling the Internet. While I've come out on the other side of Chewie's argument here, at Chewie's blog, at Ed Cone's, David Hoggard's, my own blog, and several others, I can vouch full-well for Chewie's character, depth of understanding, and integrity. Without exposing Chewie, I can only state that I would stake my own fragile reputation on Chewie's integrity without any doubts or misgivings.

In terms of credibility: I put Chewie right up there on par with even you, Mister Bledsoe, and having been a fan of yours since prior to the 1979 Greensboro Massacre, make no doubt that I hold you as credible and accountable as anyone I know.

Ask most any of the 59 members of Greensboro's Blog MeetUp group and I'm sure you'll get the same answer.

I agree with Billy that the Forrester column was over the edge, but Allen Johnson made the choice to run it. He disagreed with it so much, however, that he then made the choice to use an anonymous blogger's over-the-edge comments to disclaim it. How in the world is that justified? Just asking.

Chewie,
Red-neck racist is not hate speech but inflamatory terms referring to other races are? Please explain the difference. Rudeness is what it is. It goes both ways and some people seem to be uncomfortable with that.

Coming into this way late, I read this:
"The N&R would not publish a letter from someone whose identity is a mystery. Why the double standard? In what way is an anonymous blogger "accountable" ... and to whom?

Posted by: at April 28, 2005 07:01 AM"

Notice: no name given by the poster. Many of the other posters here have chosen to remain anonymous. What's good for the goose is good for the Chewok.

Jerry Bledsoe asks: "Could this be a point that determines whether journalism and blogs actually can mix?"

Mix? Of course they mix. By posting as Chewie, the writer has the ability to make points that the MSM (the N&R) can bring to the community in its Town Square. Chewie isn't insisting on being a "journalist" with a paycheck. The blogger is bringing an important and perhaps unpopular side to the discussion. But Chewie IS thoughtful and not a hate-monger. Has anyone accused/proved that what Chewie writes is untruthful? I think it's more of a difference of opinion, well-written, and that's exactly what the Town Square/Open Source Journalism purports to bring to me as a reader.

Don't mix up the message and the messenger. And hats off to Allen for responding sincerely to the message when it was presented to him in a respectful, ready-to-engage, discourse-promoting manner.

(Except for the "red-neck" thing but the context remains critical.)

I think, Sue, that you miss a very important point in this conversation. It is this: Asking questions anonymously of the N&R editorial team is not the same as Allen Johnson going out and picking up an anonymous blogger's comments to bludgeon the writer of a (signed) N&R opinion piece. What Chewie says on her blog is, of course, her own business, but for Allen to use the insults she flung and then pretend there is accountability because a few people around town know who Chewie is -- that's a farce. This is not journalism, and the N&R should be ashamed.

Jerry,

I have worked for Simon and Schuster in the past. I do not blog anon. If a blogger chooses to blog under an assumed name, is that any different then a pen name or having a ghost writer? I feel that if a person decides to hide their identity(for whatever reason),that is OK. Only as long as you can have the conversation and be able to e-mail or go to that persons website and continue the conversation. If there is no way to personally respond to someone, well...then I guess I am talking to Micky Mouse. I know Chewie. Chewie is a stand up person, who I would stake, whatever reputation I have on as well. Allen, I applaud you for being un-biased. As for Chewie's comments, well sometimes the truth hurts. It is only an opinion, and we are all entitled. T&R is there to heal and help a community that obviously needs healing and help. I can only hope we all get along in some way at some time.

An anonymous poster wrote: "Asking questions anonymously of the N&R editorial team is not the same as Allen Johnson going out and picking up an anonymous blogger's comments to bludgeon the writer of a (signed) N&R opinion piece."

We disagree that Chewie asked anonymously. Jay's point that a pen name is a tried and true journalistic tool is valid. Chewie, as a blogger, has an identity much like any other author. Blogging may be new to you but the venue is as valid as any other written medium.

Jerry asked about "mixing" journalism and blogging. I guess this is where my take on the answer lies. Blogging is a somewhat new medium and like all others, needs to evolve. Its role in journalism's former (and evolving) definition isn't yet finished.

Allen responded to a thoughtful (even if you don't like Chewie's thoughts) set of questions and points on a troublesome (for Greensboro) issue. That's journalism and the players are, IMO, journalists in the best sense of the word.

"We disagree that Chewie asked anonymously."

You have misread the earlier postings. It was not about Chewie asking anything. The post referred to journalists asking questions of the N&R editors about journalistic ethics. The N&R may be evolving, but if it is evolving toward anonymous sniping, it does not deserve anyone's respect.

Jay,
Pen names are fairly common in book publishing, but usually in fiction, probably primarily in bad fiction. Most often, the reason for this is that a writer is churning out lots of books under different genres, or academics or writers of literary fiction want to try a hand at a genre to see if any money actually can be made from writing books, and they don’t want to be ridiculed by their colleagues. Rarely is a non-fiction book written under a pen name, and I don’t know of a reputable book publisher who would allow an anonymous author to make personal attacks. Every book contract I’ve ever seen holds the author responsible for libel, although publishers are equally liable and take out insurance for the simple reason that most authors wouldn’t be able to pay a substantial judgment.

As for blogs, if you have one on which you write short stories, discuss movies, flower arranging or teddy bear collecting and want to use a pen name, I see no harm in that. But if you are going to enter into the marketplace of ideas, if you are going to consider yourself a “citizen journalist,” you have to take responsibility for your viewpoints and your “journalism.” You have to be accountable. You have no right to fabricate facts, to make scurrilous charges, to attack people’s character without solid evidence.

I don’t know Chewie, as you do, or anything much about her, except that she clearly is one of the better writers on the local blog scene. Neither do I know Chuck Forrester or anything about him. I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to Guilford County politics when he was serving.

But if Chewie is the standup person that you say she is, then she should reveal her identity and her relationship with the T&R project-task force-commission for the reasons I stated in the earlier post. She should take responsibility for her stands.

My point from the beginning was that when an anonymous person such as Chewie makes a virulent personal attack on an identifiable person, such as Forrester, at a News & Record website, that attack becomes the News & Record’s. It is fully responsible for the charges both legally and morally. The News & Record has no more right to allow scurrilous personal attacks on a website than it does on the printed page. The person in charge in this case is Allen Johnson, and he has the obligation to either prove the charges or retract them and apologize. If he won’t do so, the publisher should step in and do it.

Incidentally, I’m glad to see that John Robinson is taking notice of blog anonymity on his site, so maybe some serious consideration will be given to this after all. I hope so.

Jay, you say of Chewie’s comments that “the truth hurts,” which indicates that you support them. So here’s a challenge for you and Chewie. Show the evidence that Forrester doesn’t like black people. Specify the lies he has told and offer proof to the contrary. Point out the excrement for those who might not be able to smell or spot it. More importantly, spell out precisely which parts of his piece are “hate speech and why they qualify as that.

Responsible journalists, "citizen" or otherwise, would have done all of this to start with. Get the facts and lay them out and reasonable people can see the truth. Scurrilous charges reflect only on the people who make them.

Thanks for all your questions and points of view.
As a newspaperman, I prefer named sources. Where published letters to the editor are concerned, I favor signed letters and our policy demands it.
In blogging, the rules are different; commentary on the Web is not as static as it is in the paper -- it is a living, fluid thing.
So we extend the reach of letters to the editor by allowing comments on each letter. Anyone with a computer can weigh in, anonymously or by a pen name or by using his or her real name.
And any letter writer can comment on the comments. Several times over, if he or she wants.
As for anonymous commenters on blogs, I am more interested in the strength of their reasoning and arguments than who they are.
Yes, who they are might inform the point of view. But the broader goal is to expand community dialogue about topical issues.
As for Chewie's blog "handle," she is not a drive-by commenter. As John Robinson mentioned earlier, she has Web site and has established a presence and a track record in the local blogosphere (so much as any of this remains local in the strict traditonal sense).
That said, does someone who attach an honest-to-goodness name to his comment have at least a degree of greater credibility than someone who signs a "stage name" or no name at all? In my eyes, yes.
But all of your views on this issue have been interesting and have advanced the dialogue.

Jerry,

Are you writing a book on the T & R Project, et al?
Does it already have a negative slant? Who is the publisher?

I just glanced through this dialogue after reading what John wrote. I am thoroughly amused since the anonymous person(s) don't like how Chewie writes, and claims that it slanders N&R's good name. It is a blogger right? And this is a blog. If I'm not mistaken, blogs are opinionated to the author (in this case, Allen's) and what he wants to post here really is up to him as long as his employer is okay with it. I fail to see what all the sissy fits are about.

In restrospect, Allen, get the tech guys to post the first three numbers of IPs and ban proxy servers. Just tell them to do that. I'm curious to see how many actual real anonymous person(s) there are. heh.

An anon poster wrote: "The N&R may be evolving, but if it is evolving toward anonymous sniping, it does not deserve anyone's respect."

We disagree (again) that it's anonymous sniping. "Chewie" is a blogger and Chewie made the comments based on Chewie's understanding. That's what blogs are for. (BTW, you continue to post without even a handle, right here on Allen's blog. What should I make of your anonymity? Got reasons?)

Allen's blog is a blog; bloggers as well as anon posters as well as Jerry Bledsoe write here. It still sounds to me that Chewie is being lambasted because you don't like the take on Chuck's column that Chewie has or Chewie's being adamant about it.

Jerry wrote: "But if Chewie is the standup person that you say she is, then [s]he should reveal her identity and her relationship with the T&R project-task force-commission for the reasons I stated in the earlier post. [S]he should take responsibility for her stands."

(Jerry, I didn't say "she".)

One does not follow from the other, Jerry. You haven't explained why Chewie should out him/herself except that you think so. Like Allen said, "As for anonymous commenters on blogs, I am more interested in the strength of their reasoning and arguments than who they are."

These are BLOGS, folks. There are new rules. They are being established over time and are evolving. There is room for anonymity, applied with the understanding Allen wrote. Don't confuse the message with the messenger: are Chewie's comments valid opinions? Carefully construed? A result of more than a simple glossing over of a column? Imbued with serious consideration? That should be all that matters.

Ben wrote, "In restrospect, Allen, get the tech guys to post the first three numbers of IPs and ban proxy servers. Just tell them to do that. I'm curious to see how many actual real anonymous person(s) there are."

Like I said earlier and elsewhere, you aren't really anonymous anymore. Yet I RESPECT the right of a blogger to maintain anonymity. This is a small town.

Ben, as long as this is a blog, I don't agree with your IP addressing scheme above (I agree: ban proxy servers to eliminate trolls). This is a public town square forum and those, including the poster above who disagrees with me and thinks I can't read well, who want to be anonymous should be able to be so. Some anon posters on the N&R blogs are developing personalities here. Leave 'em alone. Let them join the fray in whatever manner they wish for now until their feet get wet and they move ahead. That's what blogs are, IMO, all about.

Sue,
This is the third paragraph of Allen's first post. Just a follow up of Jerry's use of "she".

"I fail to understand why Allen Johnson writes with such considered insight, then lets vultures swoop in and unload excrement all over his pages," she writes. "This doesn't serve the community, and it wouldn't seem to serve the newspaper's interests, either."

Sue, like I said in the other place.. it was late (around 4AM)... my idea behind the IPs actually evolved around commenters (perhaps not with this particular thread but in others) where people act like multiples to bolster their "side". Stupid, but it happens.

I'm just amused since if I can't give a name to things, I rarely respond to those types of people. Mostly because (again on the other thread), anonymous people, such as "Deep Throat" had a handle. Usually, no-namers are predominately up to no good on the Net, and you know what I mean since both you and I have been on around for a long time.

Also, as a moderator/admin of several forums, one of which is currently up to several thousand members, I have to say that people can hide behind their pseudonyms all they want. But if there's no name attached to it, it REALLY bugs me. That's the line I draw with pseudo-anonymity.

Dear Anon Poster,
Thank you for clarifying that I didn't use "she." Or "he." I use "s/he" which is unfortunate but we don't have a better term yet. (I ass.u.me Allen knows the difference :)

I can't wait to see what Jerry has to say about "Deep Throat." Great example, Ben. I used "DC Fontana" because I'm a Trek fan and love when women write.

Jerry?

Also, in reading the comments, I can tell you that practically all authors/actors use a pen name of some sort. Anne Rice, Tom Cruise, Vin Diesel, etc. The person makes the name, not vice versa.

I have to say... there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a 'webmail' account and using that as their cover. Anon posting is so ... I can't even think of the word.

Handles have always been a part of the Net, whether it was underground or legit. The people behind the names are the ones that make the place exciting though. Blank posters are boring.

You know what? I never knew DC Fontana was a woman. Didn't really pay attention since I like the newer ones better, but every so often, I get enthralled by Vulcans.

Is it just me or was there a big sucking sound where an indignant response to
Chuck
Forrester should have been heard? Is this not an incredibly racist and intolerant remark, especially from a former elected official?

"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. Trouble is, the guilt game is so old it�s no longer effective, as witnessed by the Greensboro City Council vote."

Signing his name didn't make his comments any more valid.

For starters: This is Billy Jones, AKA: Billy The Blogging Poet. I think the other guy really is Jerry Bledsoe whose work I have admired since I was a teenager back in the early '70s and will continue to admire.

Jerry,
You said:
"Pen names are fairly common in book publishing, but usually in fiction, probably primarily in bad fiction. Most often, the reason for this is that a writer is churning out lots of books under different genres, or academics or writers of literary fiction want to try a hand at a genre to see if any money actually can be made from writing books, and they don’t want to be ridiculed by their colleagues. Rarely is a non-fiction book written under a pen name, and I don’t know of a reputable book publisher who would allow an anonymous author to make personal attacks. Every book contract I’ve ever seen holds the author responsible for libel, although publishers are equally liable and take out insurance for the simple reason that most authors wouldn’t be able to pay a substantial judgment.

As for blogs, if you have one on which you write short stories, discuss movies, flower arranging or teddy bear collecting and want to use a pen name, I see no harm in that. But if you are going to enter into the marketplace of ideas, if you are going to consider yourself a “citizen journalist,” you have to take responsibility for your viewpoints and your “journalism.” You have to be accountable. You have no right to fabricate facts, to make scurrilous charges, to attack people’s character without solid evidence."

And you are right, Jerry, but have we forgotten Mark Twain, journalist, columnist, opinion writer, author of numerious short stories and novels? Yes, Mister Twain's work was mostly fiction but not always, and while you're right that handles and pen names are indeed rare amongst non-fiction publishers these days, they are not unpresidented.

And didn't Ol' Ben Franklin publish an entire newspaper/magazine while using a handle in the era leading up to the American Revolution?

And we're still wondering if Hillary Clinton authored that book while using a pen name.

Your point is well taken, Jerry. I made the choice to use my real name, Billy Jones, but it hasn't been easy as I've come under attack many times, even fearing that the ol' redneck in me might become too pronounced on more than one occasion. I think one needs to consider the fact that a professional journalist has a huge team behind him or her, but we bloggers are on our own in a big scary new world with nothing more than hopefully a few friends to come to our rescue.

While I'll admit that I too give more weight to someone using a real name, it's far too easy to fake anyone's name here in the Blogosphere so it really makes OUR whole argument in-fact: quite mute.

But I remain a fan.

I fail to see why, Jerry, you are so hung up on this. Perhaps it's because you are trying to avoid thinking about the ideas that Chewie is giving us rather than the process s/he goes through to deliver them. But I digress already:

1. I blog under my real name because I felt like I had to for my own sense of authenticity - NOT for the reader's. So few people in GSO actually know me I could have said I was anybody. It didn't matter. Blogging anonymously is done for personal reasons as well, just as so many 19th century artists did (well, they didn't blog, but they did the next best thing, they wrote artistic and literary criticism): Robert Schumann, Georges Sands, etc.
2. Jerry, I suggest you do a little reading on the libel statutes before waving the flag over the anonymous posts.
3. Has anyone seen Forrester's hood?

Anonymity has a valuable place in blogging. The penalties for truth-telling are radically unequal for the powerful and the less-powerful. I don't want an Internet where only people who have nothing to lose get to have their say.

Anonymity isn't ideal. Anonymity is a kludge, an imperfect, haphazard workaround of a broken system in the real world that punishes the powerless more than the powerful.

Lisa Williams,

I definitely agree with what you just expressed.

Your post adds volumes more to the dialogue.

Sincerely,

Hardy

Allen –
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

An interesting and necessary discussion; thank you.

On one person pretending to be many - it happens in Letters to the Editor too. (See Dan Gillmor's Apr 24 post here for a case in Calif. - "Vallone estimated that he has had a hand in 200 bogus letters published in Northern California newspapers....")

And - as also mentioned in the article - sometimes Person A will write a letter and ask Person B to submit it under B's name.

Some possible steps forward, both online and in letters:

Require that would-be commenters/writers disclose:
a) their real name, to the paper - or state explicitly that they're not willing to;
b) whether they have any connection to the matter they're commenting on - or state explicitly that they're not willing to;
c) whether they themselves, wrote what they're submitting - or state explicitly that they're not willing to.

Me, in Dan's comments:
"...the first step is to deter the basically-honest, thus separating the sheep from the goats. Then if you catch a goat, you barbecue him."

I'd like to point out something that people are confusing. N&R blogs, and N&R paper. Terri says that N&R blogs are in a different category. Naye, I say. There is nothing to differentiate N&R blog from the rest of the blogosphere, just because they are coming from a paper. I would say that everyone is on equal terms, and it just happens that N&R is an employer that is holding to giving their employees a way to speak out just as Sun Microsystems does.

Let me know if I've miscontrued the point.

Ben, I think this is the root of the debate. We have yet to define the real parameters of blog ettiquette - - namely, just because we are individuals with no institutional ties are we not just as (or more) responsible for the integrity of what we write?

The more I blog, the more I check my facts because I know that there are hundreds of people out there that I respect that will lose interest in what I have to say if I stretch credibility. Frankly, I believe that all of us are under the same microscope. My opinions are my own, but facts are just that. My credibility supports my opinions and without it I will not be listened to at all. Chewie and others who blog anonymously have the ear (eye?) of their readers because of their ethical approach to their craft. They check their facts and use them to help form their opinions, just like any of the columnists for the N&R. The difference between the two media seems to be that Chewie can post frequently enough that we can get a sense of who s/he is and form our judgement over a long period of time. We are only exposed to columnists or writers of letters to the editor in short, brief encounters and so are not given the time to test whether or not what they have to say is backed by integrity and truth.

Honestly? I would take 10 paragraphs of Chewie over one sentence of Forrester any day of the week.

My blog, as I see it, is an extension of my bylined column in the paper. It is more personal in tone but still adheres to certain standards of taste and civility.
As it is produced under the auspices of the News & Record, on the News & Record's Web site, using News & Record software, it still reflects on the newspaper and is not purely a personal production.
(You may note, for instance, the different voices and missions of Lex Alexander's N&R and personal blogs.)
I would expect the similar, if not the very same, standards from commenters. I also agree with Michael. If you are a repeat commenter or run your own blog, you establish credibility (or a lack thereof)and a reputation; if you want to be taken seriously, you'd best consider the strength of your facts and your arguments. You'd best come to play.

I don't mean that it's a "personal production" as you put it, Allen. I'm just thinking that blogs are more like.. hmm..

well heck.. they're like editorials. You're right. *laugh* Although I still believe that the blogs are more general, and personal opinion based. For instance, JR writes what he thinks about "put your subject in". Not something that you often see in an editorial either, whether it be your dog, your family, etc. but it's okay to stick in a blog. Maybe I'm not getting the right words down. English was never my strong suit.

I do run my own blog, I just don't comment on local politics since there isn't much interest. Now tech stuff, lead on. *grin* So phew. I am in th repeat category.

A future post will establish house rules for this blog that will address anonymity among other issues. Stay tuned.

amateurxxx amateurxxx analxxx animexxx asianxxx bbwxxx bdsmxxx bigboobsxxx bigcocksxxx bigtitsxxx bisexualxxx bizarrexxx blackxxx blondesxxx blowjobxxx bondagexxx brunettexxx bustyxxx cartoonxxx centerfoldxxx cumshotxxx doggystylexxx doublepenetrationxxx drunkgirlsxxx ebonyebonyxxx ethnicxxx facialxxx fatxxx feetxxx femdomxxx fetishxxx gangbangxxx gayasianxxx gaybearxxx gayblackxxx gayfreechatxxx gaycollegexxx gayebonyxxx gayfreesexxxx gayhairyxxx gayhunksxxx gaylatinoxxx gaymaturexxx gayolderrxxx gaytwinkrxxx gaywebcamsxxx ayyoungxxx groupxxx hairygirlsxxx handjobxxx hardcorexxx hentaixxx hotgirlxxx hotguyxxx indianxxx interracialxxx latinoxxx legsxxx lesbianxxx livexxx angaxxx masturbationxxx maturexxx milfxxx amateurxxx orgyxxx pantiesxxx pantyhosexxx petitexxx pornmoviesxxx pornstarsxxx pornvideosxxx realityxxx redheadxxx sextoysxxx sexvideosxxx shavedxxx shemalexxx smokingxxx spankingxxx teenxxx trannyxxx transsexualxxx upskirtxxx voyeurvoyeurxxx webcamsxxx youngxxx

xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies

xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies

freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies

amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur

pic mama eikonidia II koilia mathitria II kayto eikones II oyranos pio kayto II fittspringan prostituoitu II hardcore naken kat II slikke fitte lesbisk II hoydepunkt gallerier II knulla chefen porn II hyndan kat nu II sperm harig fitta II pattaya sex porno II anders II huikea beibit humalainen II organ fina tjejer II fri gamla fittor II strimma mulliga flickor II strimma porriga brudar II etudiante sodomie dans l antichambre II drole flic dildo II museaktig cowboyjente urinering II mest omskjert asiatisk kjonn II sentimento castra II eccellere film II mob roges tainia II porno akraios haristikos II fager asiatisk ligga II ohygglig sekretar onanera II