Letters to the Editor
-
I like the new policies
I haven't read all of the other letters, but I like your new policy.
I try to write with thought, intention and care because letters (even emails) carry weight. To state the obvious, words matter. Emails, being both quick and permanent can do much damage. I've hurt people with hastily sent emails.
When I got my Premium membership I was slightly daunted by the notion that others could read all of my letters easily. But don't Salon's writers have to face this every day, even concerning pieces they wrote years before? I appreciate this challenge of accountability for my online persona and for my words.
I'm frightened of this Big Brother fishbowl world and understand the wish for anonymity. However, if there is such a thing as an online community (And dave. s. makes makes me believe there is -- thanks dave!) then I do have a responsibility. Community, be it merely the Salon online 'community' or the community of the larger world, means mutual accountability.
One of the problems we are facing today seems to be a media that does not hold itself accountable for its words. As Greenwald noted yesterday, ABC can simply cite 'sources' and create a 'truth' that was never a truth.
I cannot hold the media accountable if I, publishing publicly, do not have some degree of respect for my word. (The standards differ; this doesn't mean I should not have standards.)
Besides, I'll proofread more carefully now. It's pretty embarrassing to read a past letter and notice a question mark left out, a word misused, a name misspelled, etc.
This will be fun.
-
Real Names - ok, anonymous - please keep
I agree that real names are a good thing (though you are not going down that road just yet). However, I think that regardless of permanent screen name or real name, "anonymous" must stay. Some writers have mentioned the problem of stalking, and that should be enough by itself. However, I would add that there are times when one needs to publish anonymously. Letters to Cary Tennis's column spring to mind: if one wants to write in in support of an LW's nose-picking problem, that letter should not be automatically grouped with all of the poster's other letters. Please keep "anonymous".
-
"michael sullivan"
at least you had the decency to refer to me by name "13 were from david sugarman. That's about 8% of the responses, all by one person. That's not much of an improvement, when one person still has the ability to hijack the board...even if he had anything of substance to add." but if you HAD read them, you'd have known my response, Get a Thought and hijack MY thread!, but, sadly, your only thought is "GET OFF! GET OFF! GET OFF!". may i introduce you to Brenda Palomino who had the same ""thought"" but didn't choose to address me by name. here's the solution: WRITE WALSH. (you can do it without me knowing, since you can't seem to form alliances on the web, and tell her that you want me, "GOTTEN OFF! GOTTEN OFF! GOTTEN OFF!" and she will write me, politely and ask me to leave, and since i've gotten a new respect for her (she's not *quite* as tight-assed as she appears) i'll comply. that's it. easy. but do it DIRECT! don't make some hocus pocus about "rules" (no small "i"d posters ). till then, GET BENT! i'll write what and when and how much i choose. "I was posting under so many different names" anonymous. thanks for the fun. really, what would i do without a few guys with a sense of humor. "In the meantime pull up a chair and watch the trashheap burn as we try to apply a technical solution to the problem of narrowmindedness." RealName. yes, realname, you are intemperate but correct. i too don't want to "raise my hand and be called upon". it's still true, School is for Girls (and girls of all genders, as the circus barker would say). and yes, i REALLY AGREE about the deletions. if you are going to be deleted (and now that Salon has a way to contact you) they have an OBLIGATION to tell you where you strayed. and then synonymize the epithets. some folks have ready access to various forms of snide. others are more inarticulate. but all have the same value! you'll just have to take a breath before you write...sorry, it's a loss, but a tolerable one. even if bowdlerized i want to hear your voice. it's valuable. "StefanMuc" i agree with everything you say but slashdot. i don't want to just read the "approved" letters - besides, the threading clicks are too numerous. but then, i haven't visited slashdot for a while, i got tired of Anonymous Coward, for the same reason people get tired of me - he wrote too much and his ideas were vapid. sorry all of you, i really *like* my posts, i think they are insightful, convincing and all different. part of my general egomania no doubt.
-
did you ever notice
How C&L and Atrios have become the personal playpens of about 7 people? That's why I gave up. After the morning rounds of 'good morning good morning' it was all pretty much "Bush sucks I hate him so much" "Yeah" "Yeah me too he sucks" "Ditto and double ditto for Rush!!!"
-
And you also start to notice that this new policy gives license to people to 'demand' responses from others
Which while quaint, is pretty damn funny. Now they know my 'name' they start repeating themselves and demanding an answer as if I work for them or something.
-
@Joan Walsh
Once I realized I needed to wear my glasses all the time when on the Web, I stopped being sensitive to that issue.
Just a gentle pushback, in response to a gentle slap:
I started wearing glasses all the time when they were still using PDP-8's and the Arpanet was still years from completion. I put them on before I get out of bed, I change them to read the computer screen or books, I take them off as I turn the light out at night. It goes without saying that I wear them when on the Web.