I know what you mean. I agree with both of you, actually. We all make compromises. You wouldn't believe the stuff good teachers do in the name of getting kids to pass tests. They know better and they go home heartsick every day, but they do it to keep their jobs. But maybe I'm really arguing the other side b/c that's why I am just a sub--I can't compromise like that, so instead I go to a different class each day, offering a scintillating environment where I seize the teachable moments, lesson plans be damned, providing the occasional safe haven for kids stressed and bullied by tyrannical teachers and standards.

That's what my French friend (now back in France) used to say when asking me about nuanced, slang, or just fast conversation.

Here's what I need to know: (Quite seriously)

TROLLS.

1. What is one, precisely? Someone who is not a regular reader? Someone with an opposing view who wants to cause trouble? Someone with a different view who is actually trying to change minds or skew results in some way? Or is it something even more sinister--someone who is a principal in the story in question who is hiding his identity as he tries to throw the conversation in some way?

2. How do you know who the trolls are? For example, Yellow Dog called Prof. Tim Smith a troll, but others are taking him at face value. I was going to thank Prof. Smith for giving his real identity but now feel foolish if that is not who he is. But if that was in fact Prof. Smith, I do appreciate him offering his identity and background for scrutiny, even if his view is disagreeable. (On that last point, maybe he was just feeling a bit weary and defensive on behalf of the profession; it seems that scathing attacks on schools of journalism and the teaching profession itself were a bit uncalled for. As a teacher who refuses to get certified b/c I view schools of education like you do schools of journalism, I have to acknowledge that there are many good teachers out there who have chosen to go through the appropriate hoops even if they don't like the drivel (hee hee) that goes on there. So...Maybe Tim Smith is a hack, but that's not BECAUSE he teaches journalism, that's because he's a hack.)

VILLAGE.

What does this term mean here in this thread?

BEBOP.

What is s/he all about? Delightful but strange.

It sounds kind of mean. Have you ever fallen for it?

It was disingenuous of you to suggest that the person who posted some variation of "When you can, do; when you can't, teach" is reflective of the comments to this essay. It was singularly shallow, and we ignored it. You, on the other hand, used it to impugn the entire readership. That alone speaks of your journalism credentials.

And are you kidding about being outraged at having your credentials questioned by Nequals1? That was a serious request and a smart, thoughtful letter. Again, what kind of journalist...?

But you are a troll, yes, so I've been taken in? sigh.

Someone should watch and see if he looks different. Changed in some way...

I get that the spin was ridiculous, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that the fact that everybody else's "storylines" were in agreement meant that they were right or true. (They might be right or true, but that's because they are, not because they match each other's.) Remember that old chestnut about Al Gore being a liar?

Honestly, I can't imagine what would have satisfied you all. Chris Matthews is a vacuous political junkie who gets paid for the easiest job in the world--spouting off opinions without reflection or deep knowledge of the issues--but he's not the devil, for chrissake. It's true that his show covers the horse-race almost exclusively and isn't worth watching unless you like politics like you like cotton candy, but he's not a bad guy. He's really not smart enough to invest yourselves in one way or the other; he's that likable eejit at the cocktail party who babbles on about some thing or another that you totally disagree with but you don't respect enough to argue with, so you find yourself smiling and nodding. I actually find his "heart" angle both believable and brilliant.

It's as if you wanted him to flagellate himself on the air. Who does that? Did you want an Oprah/Frey moment? That's just uncomfortable.

Maybe it's ridiculous to even bring it up because he so thoroughly lacks credibility, but I can hardly STAND the way Bill O'Reilly treats women. I know he's a jackass to and regarding everyone and everything, but there's no question he's a raging sexist. I'm watching a rerun of his show right now and he just talks right over the women he has on--even the "Fox News analysts" who work for the station and aren't his political enemies. It's just amazing. I know much has been made of his exploitation of women in terms of the content of his show, but has anybody ever kept track of the way he talks over and aggressively attacks his women guests? Not to mention that gag-inducing sexual innuendo that permeates, like how a second "Fox News analyst" just called him her "master," and how he asked her when she put her makeup on. Bill O'Reilly is the greater sexist, hands down. I know all the stuff I said earlier applies, like "He's too stupid to pay attention to," but this man has a serious audience. I'd love if HE were taken to task.