This is brilliant work. Better than the original. G&G should be flattered.
Jeff, fyi,
Speaking of Florida and the Jewish vote, I just got a link from a Jewish friend with Sarah Silverman’s “The Great Schlep”. It’s her ‘political effort’ at swinging the vote in The Sunshine State. I don’t dare post it here, and I give all fair warning that it contains possibly offensive material, albeit Silverman style, so please view at your own discretion.
Palin’s mannerisms and folksy comments were programmed, encouraged by her McCain handlers. Does anyone think she went through two weeks of practice without doing those things and then just did them spontaneously last night? If she had done that once in practice, and they didn’t want it to happen, her eye lids would have been bolted open last night and we wouldn’t have heard a single dawgonit.
They wanted her to do this, repeatedly, lay it on thick, so she did.
So the question is: what did the McCain handlers seek to accomplish by having her wink, flirt, aw shucks in front of 50 million viewers when answering questions about serious national issues in a nationally televised debate for the Vice Presidency of the US? It obviously had nothing to do with competence or how they’ll lead the country.
Basically, the GOP has presented the country with an attractive robot that will read totally irrelevant talking points off cue cards, and then claim that voters don’t want to hear a VP candidate actually respond to questions once in a debate. That comment has not received nearly enough scrutiny — I mean, the audacity. Can you imagine if Obama said to Lehrer — good question Jim, but I am just going to read a passage from Dreams of my Father, because that is what the voters care about. Sheesh.
The fact that Tim Russert passed away before he could gently tear her mythology to shreds is item number 754,000 on the “proof that there is not a god” side of the ledger … (Cubs fans may soon have 754,001 …)
Character and leadership accounts for the charisma that Governor Palin portrays.
One of the boys at NRO attribute it to sex appeal.
A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It’s one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O’Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.
Nice piece. I like the Bill O’Reilly comparison. Too bad Lowry didn’t go all the way as I’m sure that’s what he was thinking.
You know what — enough. End anonymous commenting on Ephblog. David Broadband’s fatuousness and racism and idiocy hidden behind anonymity is becoming unacceptable to me to the point where I am not certain I can contribute here any more. You wanna post, you gotta show a Williams link and you gotta do it under your name. Unlike most blogs it would not be difficult, because the Williams link would be the key. If you’re not grownup enough to post publicly, you’re not grownup enough to post.
I agree that its far past time to require some form of login or something of that sort…but how does a williams parent prove a williams connection. better to require log-ins and ban those logins that have repeatedly been abusive like broadband.
I feel anyone participating in this blog, whether anonymous or not, must present a bonafide email address that can receive email.
The acid test to be admitted would be the return confirmation of a message.
When I really think about it, it’s not the anonymity of the writer that bothers me, its the assholinity of the comment.
I am for simply rejecting any source deemed a big enough asshole (and I must be careful to watch out myself) that the message does not appear from the get-go. Is this how spam is handled?
To paraphrase “I don’t know how to define assholinity, but I know it when I see it.”
Cut that asshole ‘Broadband’, regardless of 4th generation Williams legacy or just another troll in the hall of the mountain king, out of the loop!
Swart
… taking the liberty, after being in telephonic communication, of writing for President Rechtal Turgidley, Jr. who has had operational problems on the Quark Island Ferry to contend with this weekend.
Rory –
Parents have to give their offspring/students’ names. Parents act like asses, the student gets contacted to verify. Or just verify from the outset. Ephblog should be the domain of: Alums, students & faculty, parents, and others — in that order.
I don’t care about harsh debate, I don’t mind aggressiveness, I don’t even mind namecalling. I do mind someone like Broadband coming in and spewing inanities with no accountability. If he has a Williams connection, we should get to know what it is. Anonymity is absolutely unnecessary in this context. If anyone is writing things that could get them in trouble, they should probably assess whether or not they need to be saying those things.
Actually, though, fuck it — let’s parse Broadband’s latest bloviations. I’ll place his words in quotations and preface mine with ***:
“Schlep is garbage, whether in the ghetto or “On the Street” as we have seen all week.”
*** I have no idea what this means. This is Broadband’s pseudoprofundity at work. Incoherence forcefully asserted is still incoherence.
“Our esteemed filbert proves that nuts are our “nuts”.”
*** Ditto. This is substanceless.
“Character and leadership accounts for the charisma that Governor Palin portrays. This cannot be denied as 70 million viewers observed this debate. This proves the potency and the primacy of her credentials before the observing public. They want to see her, though they have heard from the media about her inadequacy and rumors as to her unsuitability.”
*** 70 million might have watched, but in every poll of those who did watch, Biden was declared the winner. The probitive value isn’t in the fact of watching, but rather in the conclusions drawn from that act. This despite the fact that the bar was set so incredibly low — it’s as if she took the Robert Downey character’s words to heart from Tropic Thunder: She didn’t go full retard. She only went half retard and thus it somehow emerges as a quasi victory. A loss in the polls, but not as big as it could be.
“Hussein Obama understands this and responds with class warfare, Bush baloney and his standard of peddling fear and the need of further entitlements.”
*** These talking points amuse me. First, the “Hussein Obama” thing is, if not racist, at least knows racism’s zip code. second: what class warfare? It’s the GOP peddling the “elistism” trope, the “Main Street” idiocy. Obama and Biden are from demonstrably more working-class roots than their opponents. “Bush baloney”? Bush is fucking incompetent and McCain has morphed into Bush-plus. What entitlements? Be specific. What entitlements is Obama “peddling”?
“This election is about character and leadership, and not about the pied piper of schmooze and schlep, of deception and distraction.”
*** Look, McCain has run the most demonstrably dishonest campaign in history and if palin’s lips are moving the odds are that she’s lying. Andrew Sullivan has compiled a list of seventeen and counting lies from Palin. Hell, the first was the Bridge to Nowhere lie and she still has not been called on it.
“Mavericks are preferred to the mavens of deception and distraction.”
*** Again, what does this mean?
“We require heroes, rather than eunuchs and mentors, much less lecturers.”
*** Again, what does this mean? “Muchj less lecturers”? We have seen Palin 3-4 times speak publicly, and in every one she either lectured or tried to.
I hope not. That would be the end of me posting here. I am not expecting anyone to keep this blog up and running so PTC can continue to comment, but I’d be reduced to doing nothing but reading if anonymity went away. That would be a bummer.
I’ve had a good time commenting and being an author here over the years. It has been therapeutic for me. So for the sake of my sanity, I implore you all not to consider any other format!
The beauty of the internet is that it allows people to have open and honest discourse with others because the venue is anonymous. Anonymity is a must for the likes of PTC. Without it, I cannot honestly comment on much of anything.
you can still post as PTC. that’s fine. However, you’ll have a password and an email associated with that name. If you post racist material or threaten a fellow commentor, that account can/should be frozen.
no one will know your name. it is no different, really, than what we have now, it would just allow the moderators to ban certain people who have been nothing but trolls.
“You know what — enough. End anonymous commenting on Ephblog.”- Dcat.
I think dcat is pretty clear that he wants to end the ability to post anonymously. That is fine; I understand his point, as long as people are aware that it will stop people from posting.
As far as an email address, Ephblog asks for that with every post.
Like it or not, Broadband (who is an Eph?) is capturing a big part of political argument being used against Obama. I happen to enjoy watching other Ephs respond to it. I think what offends other Ephs is that he is claiming to be an Eph and holding these views- or at the very least, pushing this kind of political attack.
The McCain/ Palin ticket is about ready to give us all a massive dose of the “he is not one of us” argument. They are not doing that because it won’t work. I think it is good to have people like Broadband around, given that about 25% of our country still believes that Obama is a Muslim. Consider also, that we concede the fact that it makes sense that people would not vote for a Muslim.
Although an end to anonymity might be pretty ambiguous to someone in academia, I doubt you will get any honest comments about the state of dining services from a server or dish washer if you out them. Part of this, is the ability to express views without the fear of retribution.
Can’t Ephblog ban people by blocking IP Addresses? My guess is that David is not going to want to ban anyone. Kane is a pretty substantial advocate for speech and open dialogue.
I simply do not see David Kane buying off on banning anyone for speech because it is controversial.
PTC - it’s a little unfair to suggest that anyone wants to ban ‘controversial’ speech… I think you grant far too much dignity and meaning to the crazy rantings of a serial plagiarist.
Would you disagree if Ephblog instituted “Don’t be an asshole” as a universal commenting rule?
I’ll reiterate: I can see no justification for anonymous posting. I have no problem with dealing with oppositional arguments — I sort of deal with it as a career imperative. But if I had my druthers, yes, PTC, you’d have to decide whether to man up and provide a name or else not post.
But if that does not happen we ought to do something. If that means active emails or whatever, that’s fine. But I also believe that if wer go this route one’s identity and Eph affiliation ought to be known.
I’d like to hear the justification for anonymity. And by the way — I don’t feel that we should have to sign off with our names. I sign off with dcat, I believe “Derek” comes up at the top of my posts. but i do not hide my identity and have been quite open about that as the years have passed.
Ronit- I think being a jackass is in the eyes of the beholder in many respects. The arguments broadband uses are commonly accepted by many people in this country. I choose not to respond to broadband. I do not find anything particularly intriguing in his posts, but I do think some of the other bloggers here responses to him are interesting. If people stopped responding to Broadband, I would stop reading him. It is cool to watch sophisticated people respond to non sophisticated boorish arguments framed in collegial language.
Dcat- I am not going to man up for at least a couple more years. I am confident that there are other bloggers in here who have watched me post over the years and have a pretty good understanding that it makes sense for me to remain anonymous. I do not feel comfortable with any kind of official justification for anyone. How would that work?
Q- “What is your reason for remaining anonymous?”
A- “I want to remain anonymous because I cannot comment about politics in any official capacity given my current position. If I am known, my position is known, and my ability to have open and honest debate is gone.”
Q-“Well- what is the position that does not give you the ability to have open and honest political debate?”
A-”I cannot tell you that. I would rather remain anonymous and continue to comment.”
PTC –
If you shouldn’t be commenting, you shouldn’t be commenting. Anonymity is hardly a justification to cover something you should not be doing. It may be a pointless conversation to you, but that you are not willing to abide by standards that your job apparently sets for you is not a GOOD reason for the rest of us to have to accept your anonymity. Your professional ethical quandaries are not anyone’s problem but your own.
By the way — I actually cannot imagine what possible career field you could be in where you cannot even say what you do. Are you a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the 1980s? Even CIA folks can say they work for the CIA. That all seems a wee bit self-aggrandizing.
As for your perplexed query, it’s not all that hard. Here is how it would work: What is your name and what is your Williams affiliation? Won’t give it? Fine. You are welcome to read. You just cannot comment. If your super-important job status changes, please reconsider and let us know.
Dcat- The point is, I am not barred from commenting on anything as long as I remain anonymous.
My intent was not to self aggrandize anything. My intent is to point out that anonymity on the internet allows people who normally could not speak their minds to do so, for a variety of reasons. We disagree.
dcat -
The anonymity is an issue for parents of Ephs as well. Would you have liked to have your parents all over the internet on a site your friends read? Maybe or maybe not, but it allows parents to be more free with their comments. I also am not barred from commenting due to my job, but I am nervous about certain topics that I don’t want people attributing to my government agency. Sure, I could be open about it and still post, but I’d have to seriously censor my comments.
I am all for having a username and sign-up system. Many, many blogs have that kind of minimal “membership” type requirement. It only makes sure that you have an active email address in order to post. If someone is that motivated to get around, they will but “real” names can be faked also.
As far as being forced to somehow how prove your Eph connection, that seems extreme to me. And it could be faked anyway.
At this point we have (so far as I can tell) no moderation in comments, other than obvious spam being prevented. I think there are basic standards (racism, threats of violence, plagiarism, etc.) that could be set without inhibiting free speech too much. Controversy is not a bad thing, disagreement is not a bad thing, but I think the Board should take up some issues of basic civility (very basic). As far as Broadband, etc. I don’t think some notion of “truth” should be required…so long as he doesn’t threaten people as he has done before.
I have just returned from the mainland to Quark Island after attending a sporting event (my first in many years that did not involve horses). Despite the boiler problems on “The Spirit of Turgidley” alluded to yesterday, all is now in order.
Upon return, I find a great deal of conversation on the rights of bloggers, including, alas, my dear friend Swart using totally inappropriate language for a ‘blog’ of this sort, dedicated to and in the service of those connected to a fine liberal arts institution.
In my new appointment as president (whatever that may mean in actual fact) and board member (ditto), I took it on myself to refer to the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ for insight into the issues of anonymity and freedom of expression. While recognizing that standards may be changed, here is what I found.
Anonymity:
“Are anonymous commentators welcome? Yes! But, as in the case of anonymous authors, you should be aware that anonymity on the Internet is not complete. We do not expose the authors of anonymous comments, but it is not that hard to do so.”
And so it seems to me that anonymous commentators are welcome. Indeed, PTC, Sophmom, PG, Parent ‘12 and many more anonymous commentators or those using a ‘nom d’blog’ have made splendid contributions to this ephblog and hopefully will continue to do so.
The point seems to be developing at a level invisible to the naked eye but probably resident within the bowels of the blog, a method of establishing a bona fide link to Williams (alum, student, parent, imterested member of the Williams community) while assuring anonymity.
Freedom of Expression
Are posts/comments ever deleted? Yes, but rarely. We have deleted posts/comments on request in a dozen or so cases. We have deleted excessively obnoxious comments (generally ones that refer to someone’s physical appearance) a handful of times. But, for the most part, EphBlog is a free speech zone. Most members of our community are well-behaved. Note also that anonymous comments are more likely to be deleted. Almost always, if you are willing to put your name on a comment, we let the comment stand.
This would seem to include the question of a “Broadband” (whatever that might be) under the observation on behavior.
The FAQ (see first reference) also includes this very interesting and even more pointed statement (although somewhat contradictory as to number of instances):
Why did you delete my comment?Because it was rude or obnoxious or off-topic or trollish. We delete comments all the time. We welcome deletion suggestions from readers. Our goal is to create an Eph conversation, an on-line analogue to all the discussion and debate which occurs in the classes and dining halls of Williams. Sharp comments and pointed rebukes are welcome. If you think that someone’s argument is stupid or racist or pathetic, then write that (and back it up). But (true) comments like “Dave is ugly” will be removed. The truth is no defense against a charge of bad manners.
Without regard to David Kane’s appearance (which my old roommate has depicted in various guises at times on these pages), the crux for me is:
The truth is no defense against a charge of bad manners.
‘Broadband’ has earned his commentary social probation.
I am afraid that in spite of my better judgement I too arrive at the position of “Noli Podex”
Rechtal Turgidley, Jr
President, Ephblog
Quark Island. Maine
Having to prove an Eph connection is not a good idea. We would then have to rule out Midd and Wes students and recent graduates and Yale current students, all of whom have made valuable contributions to EphBlog in the last year.
And I’d hate to lose the parents (and, by the way, it could be that some students don’t know that their parents are blogging and their finding out could be the end of that participation).
In addition, reading carefully between the lines, we sometimes have Williams faculty and other staff posting anonymously, and I’d hate to lose them.
I’d hate to lose PTC, too. He has valuable perspectives.
For all of these people, yes, they could still read even if they couldn’t post but I also think we might lose them as readers if they couldn’t post.
#12 would be fine by me, but I don’t think it solves dcat’s problems. The way I deal with Broadband is that I just don’t read what he or she posts. It’s an imperfect solution. Going after the IP address would be better if the level of disgust with the racism, etc. is too high (I’m kind of innocent about what he or she posts because I don’t read it).
Agree to disagree, I guess. I see anonymity as cowardice. Nothing anyone has said here changes my perspective. I believe in having the guts to stand behind my words. I guess I’m in the minority on this front.
Geez…I come home from a weekend of stumping in a neighboring swing state (more on that later, perhaps) to find I am about to be ‘kicked off’ of EB! :-<
Derek,
As far as “anonymity”, You and I had an exchange about this once before where you seemed to agree with, and understand my need for a somewhat anonymous moniker. I am pretty sure any parent blogging on EB feels that same need.
However, though my moniker conceals who I am ‘on the surface’ of the site, my email is authentic, and completely reveals who I am to each and every author. What’s more, I have traded email addresses, and had exchanges with, several of the authors on this site. A few of them know my son’s identity as well. I would think it might be the same for almost every (regular) blogger on EB who isn’t completely identified by their moniker.
On the matter of ‘elimination’, or ‘probation’, I agree with you, and Ronit, and Dick…that EB should not be a ‘dumping site’ for the ridiculous, racist, sexist, rantings of a troll who is unwilling to make available to the board and authors, a workable email as well as a verifiable identity.
“ Ephblog should be the domain of: Alums, students & faculty, parents, and others — in that order.”
P.S. This is a little disappointing, Derek. It’s a caste system, of sorts. It makes me feel as if my value to EB is automatically made less or more depending on where I fall on this list.
Instead of worrying too much about who can post, let’s all focus on the content and trying to make it Eph-related. If it is productive Eph-related content (and not racist or sexist, etc. - but I guess there’s the rub), I don’t care who posts or comments. Indeed, I learn from postings and comments by people I wouldn’t otherwise hear, whether or not they identify themselves (eg., “our townie” PTC, the students and recent graduates from other schools, staff members, etc.).
Many of the people who post anonymously or using monikers say exactly the same things they would if they were signing their names every time or speaking with any of us face-to-face. Soph Mom is a very good example of that. I suspect that the recent graduate who styles himself or herself as “current eph” is another.
There are a very few people who are taking advantage of their anonymity to display very poor character (which I suspect we would also find them doing, although more subtly, if we knew who who they were and were talking with them face-to-face). In our frustration, let’s not write overbroad rules/procedures that throw out the baby with the bathwater, the helpful and polite desirable members of this community with the jerks and retrobates.
Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I just don’t read the jerk’s comments…and maybe I have a duty,(a very distasteful one) to read them so that I can see what he or she is up to.
I believe I read that you recently received tenure. Congratulations, and best wishes for a long and productive career.
As you obviously know, things look rather different from the relative safety of academe than they do from what those running as “outsiders” tend to call “Warshington DC.” I don’t think PTC works for the Department of Justice, but look at what has happened in that department as an example: the hyper-politicization of what were once intellectual (and extremely high general competency) creme de la creme entry fellowships (and as a byproduct, along the way the injection of a huge measure of anti-intellectualism) and the blatantly political mass removals of prosecutors for purely political reasons (e.g., their failure to make politically-motivated prosecutions and/or the desire to replace well-functioning professionals with individuals chosen principally for their far-right political views - that is, with what might be called “true believers” or “hatchets”). Having “political” thoughts or even being thought to have them can be very dangerous and can lead to losing a job or career even where those thoughts aren’t central to or even directly relevant to carrying out the job/profession. Keep in mind that that job/profession may well be one that the person who possesses it rightly believes constitutes an important service to the country.
Many people have their heads way down. These are scary times (and the economic chaos adds another level of peril as those with families cannot lightly jeopardize their livelihoods; those who are fired or pushed out are likely to have an even more difficult time finding employment than those who are “just” caught up in the downturn).
As I understand it, PTC is not allowed, as a condition of his employment, to have his name associated with “political” comments, but is free to express himself anonymously. (And note that, even without today’s surrounding climate of fear, PTC’s practices are actually how many “Hatched” government employees chose to live out those strictures.) Many others work in situations where the climate is harsher, and would lose their jobs if it were known that they posted political commentary, even anonymously, of anything but the most rah-rah exactly-in-line-with-or-further-right-than-the-administration’s-announced positions. In addition, I take it that PTC travels extensively for work but needs to keep his travels a bit quiet, for which it is probably best to adopt a habit of anonymity and circumspection.
All of which is to - finally - get to my point. I thought you were harsh on PTC, and I don’t think he deserved it. I have a sense of where he’s coming from. I would prefer that our thoughtful public servants, rather having to deny the expression of whole parts of themselves (that is, what we might call “homo politicus”), could freely and safely participate in political and other discussion in very low-profile (i.e., anonymously) through communities of interest such as EphBlog, honoring an important condition of their employment and also free from worrying about unintentionally breaking it.
Besides, I really enjoy reading what PTC has to say in his role as “token Townie” and friend of several Williams generations. He has never abused his anonymous status (i.e., he is more than civil, doesn’t make racist or other such offensive remarks, and doesn’t flame people), is helpful, provides interesting content (swimming holes!) and clearly loves Williamstown and its surrounds as much as any of those who possess a Williams diploma do. I don’t think there’s anything he has ever posted that he wouldn’t say to any of us face-to-face (assuming he thought he could do so and still honor his employment stricture). This is not some cowardly two-faced creep, but an honorable man.
I cannot imagine EB without PTC’s comments. He adds so much. As well as most of the other seemingly anonymous commenters; ‘nuts’, aparent, parent 12, JG, current eph, anon ‘89…the list goes on and on. But as I said, before, I believe it’s okay if you are willing to provide a real and verifiable email.
I do understand where Derek is coming from, though. There are many anonymous commenters who are just plain cowardly. For instance, I think it is less than responsible when a commenters uses more than one moniker in a single thread. I did that accidentally when I first started blogging here…and then once since when I considered changing my moniker after being insulted by Broadband. (I quickly thought better of allowing that nonsense to intimidate me) But those who do it in order to ‘drop’ an insult without taking responsibility for it, are being cowardly, IMO.
Derek… as well, I think you add such a unique and valuable point of view to this site. So, I would hate for you to drop away over this issue. Surely we can find a compromise…perhaps one like the solution Rory offers?
SophMom –
First, while I would not use the phrase “caste system” I would happily establish a hierarchy at a Williams-related blog. Sorry, but no matter your level of engagement and commitment, Williams is not as much yours as your sophomore’s. It is not as much yours as it is mine. It is more mine than it is PTC’s. This is what being a student or an alumni means.
And Larry, unless you want to send me off into a tirade, don’t pull this crap about the “relative safety of academe.” (And please — lecture me about Washington DC — I’ve no idea how the city works, what with only a PhD in political history and a more-than passing acquaintance with the city. Is it really all that people say it is? Please do tell . . .) I’ve seen too many grad students and junior faculty members get into trouble for speaking up, no matter the merits of their cause. This seems a variation of the real world nonsense we’ve covered here before. I do not want to hear that somehow Washington is the apodictic example of a perilous world. If your job does not want you using your name, that’s the career you chose. I’ve seen no one chained up in the galley of a ship, brought up the Potomac, and at the tip of the whip forced to slave away in the Transportation Department. If your job has certain requirements or expectations of thinsg you can do or not do, it is your requirement to choose to adhere to those things or not to. Other people choosing to breach their ethical responsibilities falls into the categories of things that are not my responsibility.
Sorry I’m being doctrinaire about this, but as a junior faculty member at another institution I got in trouble for my public airing of views in a a couple of op-ed pieces and still kept writing under my own name, at significant career peril, so I have no patience for the gutlessness inherent in anonymity whether the things those people say are anodyne, provocative, smart, helpful, insightful, idiotic, racist, friendly, or forgettable.
Yes, I’ll accept any compromise along the lines of Rory’s, but I will continue to think less of our anonymous interlopers. Intellectual courage matters. Some have it, some don’t. (There are some cases where personal safety might demand anonymity — I’ve occasionally quoted Zimbabweans, for example, without giving their names. So yes — if anyone’s posting at Ephblog might get them killed or harassed by an authoritarian state, I’d accept their anonymity. But helping people get around professional agreements that they have agreed to, or that they may be hiding behind? Not so much.)
I still don’t understand your unwillingness to see that partial anonymity is necessary for some people, especially parents.
And why do you view it as cowardly, given that we are not really anonymous? As I said before, my identity is known to many of the bloggers. But my moniker protects me, and my family, from the likes of the few who have other than good intentions.
And could you define what it is you’re looking for? Would I be considered less anonymous if my moniker was Mom Mary, for example? Or Mary D?
I am curious if other Ephs feel the same as Derek? If so, please speak up. I really don’t want to be part of the site if that’s the case.
And Derek, if I used ‘caste system’ incorrectly, I apologize. I’m not sure how best to describe the feeling I’m having, but suffice to say, I do feel ‘less valued’ as a result of your comments regarding an EB ‘hierarchy’.
I believe we both came to this site about a year ago.
For me, I just wanted to have a link to interesting people with whom there might be a common reference to chit-chat about various and sundry.
Little did I realize the focus on, attention to, and verbosity possible on subjects that while of some passing interest of a Williams connection could quickly devolve into wonkieness.
It has been my aim to add a quick spot of colour to the pages and where possible a light touch of humour. A Williamsy connection has not been a requirement for my subject selection nor will it ever be.
From your writing and your handling of one of the topics in the Winter Reise, it is obvious you are an avatar of “interesting”.
I believe the “hierarchy” of this blog is determined by the content and readability of one’s contributions.
On this standard, you are in the first echelon of participants, whether a parent, using a nom d’ blog, or actually an old man sitting in a small town in the great Northwest.
Glad you are here. Don’t even think of leaving. Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome!
SophMom –
Look, I’m sorry if you feel less valued. But I am not sorry for making what should be the uncontroversial, not to mention correct, point that at a college, any college, not all share an equal claim. I have a hard time believing that you believe that anyone has an equal claim to any place on earth. That Williams means more to its alums and students seems so obvious, so inarguable, so rational that I have a hard time beliving that you are actually feeling wounded over it, as opposed to that most common of modern responses: feigning anger or outrage for effect.
Next up on the list of grievances: I bet You are prouder of your children than I am. I bet You value your home more than I do. I bet Your memories mean more to you than they do to me. I’m shocked and outraged by such assertions that reduce my value, even if they are irrefutably true! Please.
Why is partial anonymity “necessary” for parents? I’m curious. It’s a rather broad rendering of the idea of “necessity.” Actually, scratch that: It’s misuse of the word by any reasonable definition. Ain’t no necessity in posting comments on a blog. If anything, that’s the opposite of necessity. If your kids don’t want you blogging, you maybe shouldn’t be blogging at Ephblog. If they don’t mind, why would your anonymity matter?
As I’ve said (and said, and said — methinks some people are being willfully obtuse at this point) — I’d be happy for us all to continue using our noms de plume, but with the ability for any of us to be able know who anyone is if requested. I have no idea why someone ought to be able to criticize someone else who gives their name under the cover of anonymity. So fine — be anonymous. I still see it as a cowardice issue, or at least as a courage of one’s convictions issue.
I never claimed that Williams “means more to me” than it does to you. And I am not “feigning anger or outrage”. I am just a bit uncomfortable with a system of hierarchy of which I’m at the bottom. I never thought of myself as being less important to EB because I’m not an Eph.
As well, when I described my reasons for anonymity to you on your site, you were fairly understanding. So now, when I try to explore what appears to be a stricter stance on your part, I am obtuse and cowardly?
I can’t really go into all the reasons why I think it’s wise to remain somewhat anonymous. Much of it has to do with my son. I feel it would bring him unwanted attention if I was openly blogging as his mom.
But at the risk of being called worse than “obtuse” and “cowardly”, I will stop trying to explain it.
People disagree. We aren’t getting anywhere positive with this. It’s been a really rough day for me. Let’s drop the parry.
If you want to propose that we follow Rory’s suggestion, dcat, I’d appreciate your formally doing that, including your suggestions about how the decision should be made. Is it a board policy question, to be decided solely by the board? Is it a question for the general audience ? If the latter, who will referee the decision making process? And if anyone posts a proposal, please include what will/who will be the enforcement mechanism under the proposal.
If you don’t like Rory’s proposal, dcat, do you have another suggestion? Again, same subquestions.
Does anyone else have suggestions they want to put forth for consideration?
Thank you for taking the time to try to solve a problem that is bothering some readers a great deal.
Didn’t mean to overlook your comment. I so appreciate the wit and humor you bring to EB. Like you, I really enjoy the opportunity for conversation with a variety of bright and interesting people. I learn something every time I blog!
dcat, I’m still not sure how it makes one “cowardly” to want to keep a job. Kudos to you for being willing to put yourself out there but I cannot afford - literally - to lose my job over something as silly as a comment on EB that someone misinterprets (not an ethical violation, a misinterpretation). And while I will accept that it makes me a bit lazy to not want to have to censor every remark I make for the purposes of keeping my job, I am not afraid of having people know who I am. I have met several EB regulars in person (and will meet Soph Mom soon!), and others on the site knew me from my comments and initials alone. Anyone who put forth a modest amount of effort could probably determine my identity. But the veneer of anonymity makes my life easier. I admit it. I blog for the entertainment and discussion, so I want it to be easy.
You say:
I’d be happy for us all to continue using our noms de plume, but with the ability for any of us to be able know who anyone is if requested.
So what is the problem then? Other than Broadband who purposely obscures, is there anyone whose name and/or contact information you’ve been unable to obtain? Or is this you “feigning outrage” over an issue that has not presented itself? Every comment comes to an author w/ email address attached. If you *really* wanted to find someone, you could email the author of a piece or David as the admin, and the introduction could easily be arranged.
I guess I’m confused why this is such a big issue - unless it has ever actually been an issue. Why talk of cowardice and hierarchies?
I probably shouldn’t bite on this topic, but it irks me. How connected you are to Williams actually isn’t necessarily about you as a student or parent or townie or professor - current or former. I know many students that haven’t set foot on campus since graduating, were detached during their time on campus, and hate the school. I know parents who go back every year to visit despite their children being 20 years out. Who is more connected? They have different frames of reference and bring different perspectives, but I wouldn’t necessarily apply a categorical ranking of who somehow has a higher status of Williams-ness What a pointless exercise. Ephblog is about “all things Eph,” which includes the town, the families, the staff, the faculty, and yes, the students. This isn’t a student or alumni blog. It is EphBlog.
Aren’t you the official ephpundit? I might be mis-remembering. I would have thought you’d add something about the vp debate rather than start a debate about EB participants. I ask because I don’t see why the topic of this thread seemed to start with politics, then shifted with your request for no anonymous posts.
The reason I might not remember if you’re the ephpundit is that it’s difficult to keep track of who’s who. If the monikers accurately reflect who the person is, then I find it useful. Personally, I don’t care about the anonymity. I care more about the quality of the contributions.
I believe that “David Broadband” is a case by myself. I actually wonder if he could be diagnosed as schizophrenic. His writing is very much like “word salad.” I don’t read it for meaning. Occasionally, I’ll glance at it from a clinical perspective. I’m impressed that you and others spend time trying to interpret his prose.
I understand SophMom’s personal reaction. For me, at least at this point in my life, I’m much more interested in my son’s college than I am in any of my alma maters. If parents have to present the equivalent of a tuition invoice, I don’t think the policy would reflect well on Ephs.
And I do think anonymity is cowardly (though I’d love to see the reductio ad absurdum strain of argument that leads one to believing that commenting on Epgblog could possibly lead to losing one’s job).
SophMom asks why I allow anonymity on my blog — I think it is cowardly there as well, but I guess people are allowed to be cowardly on a blog not aimed at a particular community. And I simply delete noxious posts because it is my blohg, where as this one is a community’s blog. This blog is aimed at a specific community, and thus has different standards that I cannot impose.
I find it interesting that SophMom apparently cannot be disagreed with without it being personal. I disagree with you on anonymity. We’ve agreed on most things before. Sorry if we cannot keep the ratio at 100%, but yes, I see you feigning indignation that you should not feel.
Parent12 — you really don’t see where my call for no anonymity began? How’s about looking closer: Hint: Broadband’s comments. At a certain point enough was enough for me. And I was/am the Ephpundit, but as soon as the cries came up to end the Ephpundit experiment, and the poll went up, I had seen no sense of the resolution. My take on the VP debate? Simple. It seems that the folks advising Palin saw Tropic Thunder, advised that Palin not go full retard, she barely acceded, yet still was perceived as losing by all but her most ardorous boosters, and since then Obama has seen improvement in the polls. Plus, VP debates don’t matter.
JG — you really see Broadband as the only problem on this front? I guess your memory does not go as deep as mine. I seem to remember a couple of other kerfuffles (think: Nazis). And if you really think I’m “feigning outrage” over anonymity, I have some emails I can show you from anonymous people with regard to writing I have done where my name and affiliation was known but where my critics have been able to keep their identities hidden. I cannot change the world, but I can hope that Ephblog could be better.
And here is the “but”: Most people here disagree with me. I, unlike a few sensitive souls here, can live with that. Let a thousand flowers of anonymity bloom. I’ll continue to think those of you unwilling to stand behind your thoughts are cowards. But if that’s how we’re going to be, I’ll live with it. For now. But sorry — my work is on civil rights. There is only so much racism, subtle or otherwise, I am willing to countenance on a blog with which my name is associated. Some of you have different standards, fine. Just don’t expect them to be mine and don’t expect me to see bravery where there is the opposite.
I’m still dumbfounded that it is objectionable here to maintain that students and alumni have a closer association with their colleges than others, that it is offensive to assert that those who went to Williams have a higher claim on Williams than those who did not. I did not realize that we all resided in Crazytown.
Derek: Several media outlets and firms forbid employees from blogging, anonymously or not.
That said, I don’t see the majority of commenters here as fully anonymous. I know the vast majority, and/or could discover their identity and confirm their connection to Williams within hours; reasonable discretion and respect for privacy prevents me from doing so without a good reason, but there is a reasonable level of “assurance” here.
Though we have other issues of ettiquette and courtesy here, BroadBand seems to be the problem, and their is no reason to generalize that problem to any situation outside Broadband. Without going into it, that problem seems to have been resolved– for now.
We could certainly improve the quality of this forum by having user profiles and other features– for instance, the ability to search a user’s historical posts, by category. These are not immediately trivial to implement, but they build “identity online.”
I am generally opposed to the tendency to anonymity online, and the cesspool it creates, FWIW, and thus have some sympathy for your position: if certain posters’ posts were linked to their identity, perhaps they would exercise more discretion. On the other hand, I see no indication of that, comparing “cloaked” posters to those of us who use “real names.”
No place for a dissertation; see Ethan Zuckerman (’93)’s blog for various well-grounded treatises favoring online anonymity.
I never questioned why you allow anonymity on your blog. I only said that you seemed okay with my explanation (on your site) of why I choose to have a moniker. However, I am not anonymous to you or any other author on this site, so I am still confused as to what the real problem is.
And Derek… honestly, I am okay with the disagreement, but being called cowardly and obtuse did smart a bit, so it may have seemed I took that personally. As well, I am a bit hampered by the fact that my need to remain anonymous on the screen, is the very reason why I can’t adequately defend my position. If this seems cryptic, I apologize. If you want more of an explanation, you are welcome to email me.
Look, you have raised some valid points. You have pointed out that my need for anonymity on the internet, may be reason enough to stop blogging altogether. A fact I must seriously consider and perhaps discuss with my family.
Derek- did you see what I posted on this? I’d be curious as to your response:
The question we must ask ourselves is twofold. First, are we allowing for the best participation? Second, are we allowing for the best user experience?
The current policy allows for a great amount of participation, something I think is best. Thread owners, like myself in this case, are custodians of the comments. I have on very rare occasion exercised editorial powers when I thought it prudent (and was very obvious about it), and I think this is the best control method available. Registration will lower the ability of other users to comment (we see the occasional Anon ‘09 or ‘10) and harm some community members who desire anonymity (like Soph Mom or PTC). I don’t see that as helpful. We have banning methods available to us, and if there is a consensus to block the IP address of a certain Dutch anonymity server used by a commenter here, that might be an action taken.
Ultimately, I think it unnecessary to require registration, something that will have a negligible impact on the second question, while severely hampering the first.
Man- This thing is getting uglier by the second. Republicans are yelling “kill him” as Palin spouts that he is a terrorist. Unreal. I bet the Secret Service is working triple time right about now.
He was just in Newport News. We went to see him. Large crowd… about 18,000. The local party screwed up the venue though… about half the crowd (my family and I included) did not have a vantage point to see Obama. We could barely hear him as well. All they needed was a big screen and a few more speakers… and it would have been much better. A lot of the people in my section, left early.
Still. No way he lost any voters. If the crowd in Newport News is an indicator of what the returns are going to look like coming from black districts, McCain is going to lose Virginia. The Carolina’s are also in play. I do not think the “he is a terrorist” meme is going to work, not with the 401K statements this quarter. I just hope Obama survives this. A lot of people do not realize exactly how dangerous this is going to be for him.
PTC: just got my late-night/early morning conference with Europe, so your question about China (etc) is in my mind again (again). No easy answer here: but I think the Central Banks’ position is probably still that the dollar has to take another 50% or so in devaluation, (etc.); to switch to my take (echoing Obama in the first debate), the US has to be in Latin America and Africa (etc)– along with China and Europe (etc). We’re behind in the game, far behind.
My own failure to engineer this in Mexico notwithstanding: I’ve been slowly emailing the pundit academics who’ve published on the issues, citing their comments and somewhat gently suggesting that they have little idea what they’re talking about. Maybe we’ve come to the point where I should be using the expletives that come to mind: damn right, at least, that China, Europe, (repeat emerging regional/sphere powers) now have more influence that the US.
I don’t know how to simply express the enormity and complexity of it: but to say it, Europe (the European states) were prepared to attempt to turn Obrador’s Mexico into a satellite state– a direct challenge to both the States and China. We vastly underestimate the new Europe and the other new supra-regional-superpowers: we’re not going to be the “hegemon,” the determining power, again, but…
But. It still seems to me that it would have been so simple, so obvious, to reform an alliance with Mexico, to define our mutual interests, to bring Mexico within the neoliberal economies and expand such a model throughout Latin America… to secure our “sphere of influence.”
I am dismayed that it did not happen: all the pawns were in place, we had the chance to attempt a new strategy… and…we just weren’t ready, to find a new place in the world.
And maybe I’m still fighting last years’ wars there: the opportunity is lost, the battlefield conditions have changed. But: it’s still a battlefield. Certainly China– Europe– the Middle East– Russia and its satellite republics– East Asia– are fighting a multi-faceted economic war against us. If China cannot afford to dump the dollar and tank the US economy tomorrow– if the rest of the central banks won’t follow– it will be able to in five or ten years. We have to form a response. We have to accept that {it} is inevitable, that there must be a strategic response.
And as long as we’re here: I’m no dove here. As long as we have power, we need to exercise it and preserve our advantages: but what we’re engaging in now is fantasy, idiocy and incompetence. We cannot be the central economy: what we can do– with enormous effort– is be better than China (et al), and guide the economies of our world to equal productivity– and try to chart the course through war and conflict and provincialism {…}
The security situation in Nashville tonight is interesting, not least in the fact that there seems to be little to no security around McCain, and Obama (at least via ‘official time’) got a three-hour closure of interstates and streets; as well as house-to-house searches and an FBI/Secret Service contingent that’s about as thick as I’ve seen… haven’t checked out the situation at 3— Lynwood (yet). And tomorrow… well, this is not Oxford Mississippi, and there’s going to be a lot more happening in the streets.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this thread and the points raised by Derek. I am hoping that the issues will be addressed and not just allowed to drift to the wayside as they so often do here, so this comment is an appeal of sorts to the EB board.
First of all, I believe that parents are a very valuable part of EphBlog. They provide a lot of information that EB might not otherwise get. I think David would vouch for me in that regard. Things change rapidly on a college campus, and many of the subjects discussed ad infinitum here, are not accurately viewed. There are a couple of topics in particular that regularly get the incorrect, ‘expert’ advice of alums that left twenty years ago. The few current students that blog, in particular Will Slack, are an invaluable source…but parents, especially those in good communication with their kids, are also a reliable source of current information.
However, I do agree that ‘anonymity’ can encourage irresponsible blogging. I had never really considered this until Derek’s comments. It was a bit sobering to think back on some of my own remarks, and realize the truth of this. I promise to try and remember that in the future. :-P
That said, I just don’t think there are any parents who will blog under their real names. To tell you the truth, I would almost think less of a parent who willingly puts that burden on their son or daughter. It is hard to explain…and I would love to hear it put into words by ‘Parent 12′ or ‘aparent’, or any other moms or dads blogging here.
Does this mean we shouldn’t be blogging? Maybe. But given what the site offers us, and what I believe we in turn, contribute, I am hoping for a little ‘leeway’ on this.
Proof of parentage is easy to offer, (at this point all the authors know who I am, and half know who my son is) as well as a verifiable email and identity…which in turn renders us ‘anonymous’ only on the ’surface’ of the screen.
SM: Count me among the first who would admit that I lack the courage to post with my real name — primarily because my parenting /protective instinct is so strong. Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand why all of the current Ephparents here post using bland screen names.
As far as I’m concerned, within the context of blogging about “all things eph” on this site, an eph parent shall be defined as a submember of the general class of Ephs, of equal status with all others, and with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, until proven otherwise.
SM: It may be that, given all their other endeavors, it’s a low priority. Maybe just reading the posts is enough — I know that I look forward to the laughs that the new EB president’s posts provide. It could be that they’re just not interested in commenting — and that may be partly a function of feeling like new in-laws at a large, extended-family gathering. Or, as a Williams alum pointed out a few days ago in a dkane thread referencing College Confidential, they may feel like the parent of an Eph who said this: “do not ever look at ephblog if you are trying to gain insights into the Williams experience. 95% of it’s posts are from a group of less than 10 left wing extremists whose opinions and comments bear little or no resemblance to the school my child is attending. If you were to reflect upon the Williams they portray, you would never want your child to go there. It may well be an interesting blog for some, but it has little to do with the current Williams College.”
I agree…that Dick, and..ahem…Rechtal, are the best thing(s) to happen to EB since I started on the site. Dick’s posts are the ‘gift that keep on giving’. They provide a lovely chuckle, no matter what…and real depth, if you look closer.
As far as the comment about ‘left wing extremists’ on EB? IMO, that appears to be someone with a ‘hidden agenda’…or at the very least, an ‘axe to grind’.
Soph mom- You should be blogging if you want to. The point is, you can do it and remain anonymous … so you do not have to worry about how it could effect anything other than your views and ability to participate in this blog. That is the point. Don’t worry about it! The vast majority of the bloggers here disagree with dcat on the subject of anon comments. No big deal.
I get that. Nevertheless, thank you…to you, and to Ken, and to Rory.
However, this is not about pitting me against Derek. He raised some very valid points. What I am trying to find out, is why there aren’t more parents…and women…blogging on EB?
So far, ‘aparent’ has offered some insight. Her analogy about the ‘uncomfortable in-laws at a large, extended family gathering’, rings true.
But, IMO, EphBlog should be a natural ‘go-to’ place for new parents. As well, there should be more women. And more students. (although that is another discussion altogether. And perhaps one that Will can tackle.)
With that in mind, I am looking for more feedback as to why this isn’t the case.
Soph Mom: I can’t think of one general-interest blog that has anywhere close to 50% female participation in discussion threads… this is true even when the lead author on a blog is female (I can think of several excellent finance/econ blogs written by women which bear this out). Apart from blogs on some very female-specific niches, the blogosphere is an overwhelmingly male space. I would wager that the relative lack of female comments here is not an idiosyncratic EphBlog issue, but rather something inherent in the medium.
(I am perfectly willing to admit, of course, that my definition of “general-interest” blogs (on topics like politics or economics or finance or foreign relations) is inherently gendered, because it privileges types of discourse that are approved by the patriarchy, while my consigning blogs with high female participation to “female-specific niches” simply ghettoizes any attempts to speak of things other than the patriarchy’s approved topics of conversation. Our language may well be at fault here, and I may inherently be programmed to see “male-specific niche” topics as being somehow “gender neutral”, while I am simultaneously unable to include “female-specific” topics within the mainstream of the “general interest”. But I’m doubtful that this is the explanation.)
I’ve been away for a bit and will be out of town for a few days so this will almost certainly be my last post on this question, but I do want to raise a few points:
1) I made no actionable assertions about “hierarchy.” Any assertion that I did is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually sloppy. I’m not rehashing what I’ve written here. If you must caricature me, fine. I suppose it’s easier for some people than engaging.
2) Let’s don’t pull the “I’m a parent of an Eph, you’re not, and if you were you’d agree with me” horseshit, ok? I think I have a pretty demonstrable record of standing behind what I write on issues a lot more contentious and frankly important than what’s going on here. It’s pretty halfassed to hint that someone might abandon their hard-earned principles if only they were at the same life stage as the person (anonymously, natch) making a contary argument.
3) This isn’t that big a deal to me relative to other issues that are out there today. But when the issue comes up I will defend my beliefs ardently. I oppose anonymity when someone criticizes a person who uses their own names. I do see it as an issue of intellectual courage. I do believe it’s nonsense to hide behind anonymity to skirt one’s professional ethics. I’m not changing my mind on this. I’m moving on now.
Ephblog is my one and only ‘blog’ experience…so I really appreciate your input, which I know is based on experience, logic, and real examples.
However, if Ephblog is a site that is supposed to serve all things Eph…and in a sense, aims at being a microcosm of the Williams campus, then don’t you think it should examine a bit more closely, why it doesn’t seem to be able to extend participation beyond a majority of male bloggers?
You are taking this the wrong way. The thread has moved on. As I said before, you raised some very valid points. Honestly, you made me think about some things that I hadn’t even considered considered before your comments.
However, the discussion also made me question why EphBlog doesn’t have a more diverse group of participants. Maybe Ronit is right…maybe my expectations are naive. But before I leave the site altogether I am going to make a damn good, last ditch effort, at changing what I see to be bit of a ‘mens club’.
You are a blogger. You have a site. Is Ronit right? Is it primarily men who blog? Am I expecting too much to want more parents and women to participate on EB?
And BTW, Derek, you may see this as unimportant, even petty. But I see it as an opportunity to explore the questions that are at the root of much bigger issues than the readership and participation of EB.
Derek, the least you could do is comprehend what I wrote — or at least not misquote me: I wrote: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …” and not “if you were you’d agree with me” which is more likely “horseshit” than what I actually said or intended — understanding is not the same as agreeing (or abandoning one’s principles). Or do you wish not to acknowledge that there’s a difference?
I think the issues are probably two levels of complexity beyond our current discussions.
It would be interesting to take a quick look at women’s patterns of internet usage (with some attention to culture) versus men’s. EphBlog certainly does function in some ways as a men’s club, and I think we would see some notable differences in what women (on average) use the internet for, and how.
An ‘adage’ re: online shopping from some years ago comes to mind: men ‘browse’ while shopping on the internet, taking a long time to evaluate and come to decisions, while women tend to be “in and out,” find what they need and purchase shoppers. Exactly the opposite is said to hold in “real life” “brick and mortar.”
Now that over 50% of consumer purchases are on-line, we may be talking about some serious changes in social life.
Anonymity also has a long history in internet (not only web) forums, and one of its primary (once touted as ‘liberatory’) functions was to allow people to construct ‘personalities,’ and explore options, outside of their (so-called) ‘real,’ day-to-day lives. This was particularly evident in early-90s Williams, where females who might have been particularly “shy” or reserved in day-to-day lives, or who were typecast into roles and identities that didn’t fit by friends and ‘reputation,’ led quite active online lives– creating personalities elsewhere, ‘posing’ as males to see how they were treated, etc.
I’m a critic of the Web: versus the (relatively small in terms of numbers) explosion of the early 90s, the Web is a narrow medium that restricts possibilities and breadth of communications, and its “cesspool” tendency largely comes from its difficulties in transmitting the kind of complex and ‘historical’ information necessary to communities and long-term, indepth conversations.
We get around this a bit on ephBlog because the pool of individuals is small and we have some long-term understanding of each other; but take in contrast something like the NYTimes or Fox News’ “comments” sections for articles. These really are “shoot off” sections: there’s very little conversation– much less long-term conversation– going on. Instead, you have 500 people more interested in expressing their opinion of the moment, than in listening or conversing– and then they go on to the next topic.
To try to actually answer the focus of your question, I think we would need an introduction “for parents” and a parents-focused section of the blog: both explanation and a specific place for parents. Walking into eB is indeed quite a bit like being the in-laws (or spouse!) suddenly walking into a family gathering: everyone knows years of references, history and innuendo, except you.
Rinse/repeat that for women, if you will, but I’m not sure it is a sufficient answer. Topical issues may matter– as the women of my generation experience health issues such as breast cancer decisions, I’ve thought about posting something on the topic– but, of course, we also need more women’s voices and stories and opinions.
The very format– a sort of spout-off– may be either hostile or misaligned with that. As flawed a work as “Women’s Ways of Knowing” would suggest that, “cognitively” as it is said, women (again as a group) work, and construct knowledge and discussions, in different ways. I’m tempted to add: they may be somewhat more complex thinkers, their cognitive processes may be harder to express or reduce to a straightforward first-person omniscient narrative, and they may be somewhat more resistant than the average male, to falling into the patterns and errors of this kind of cesspool.
I’ll end on a different note– a recent study I read suggested that women, in terms of long-term cost and productivity, make far better computer programmers than men. Why? Women tend to think of who will come next and make comments intended to guide them; men rarely leave comments, rather focus on “puzzle-solving,” quick and ‘innovative’ ’solutions’– and often seem to take a particular delight in obscure (and obscuring) formulations which are difficult and costly down the road.
LOL, Ken… Your giving a shit…“horse”, or otherwise, is so appreciated.
Look, I grew up with a bunch of guys. I am very accustomed to the dynamics of being the minority in respect to gender. I learned I had to pipe up to get a word in edge-wise. I guess I’m doing the same thing here.
Mostly, I’d like to see more of a balance to the majority of male voices on EB. I think the site would benefit as a result.
The anonymity is an interesting ’side’ conversation to me at this point. It is, after all, something that women, and parents tend to take on in an effort to protect that which is more vulnerable… themselves, or their children.
As well, the whole question that you raise, of ‘on-line’ personality vs. real life personality, is fascinating, and one that JG and I will have the opportunity to explore soon by actually meeting. I’m looking forward to it!
Derek- My apologies for the poor spelling and my poorer attempt at humor. It was a “shout out” to the masses and play into town and gown populism within the realm of all things Eph. A “caricature” of the oppressive cast system of this blog! I can reach out to Soph mom and overcome this brutal “blogthology” that keeps us down!
I am the ultimate elitist townie… just call me the Sara Palin of Ephblog… a townie with lipstick who pals around with local terrorists (students building pipe bombs on athletic fields) while advocating for PILOT to improve education at MT Greylock while I fight the evil that is “Mary Jane Hitler”.
If you have some spare time (I know: after the election), you might browse around various types of blogs. You could start with those that are linked to EphBlog, and then maybe dip into blogs that they link.
The largely female parenting blogs (usually about parenting very young children) stand out as quite different from many others, for example: information-driven and supportive, with little or no contentiousness or argument, lots of humor, and a lot of reaching out to form or sustain community. The subject drives that, but there’s no doubt that the gender of the majority of the bloggers matters, too (you may find it like being on a different planet from EphBlog).
I’ve never followed a blog about living with a major illness or disability (other than to read Sam’s account of life with his son, which constantly moved me), but I would think they would be much like the parenting blogs, with the subject driving the tone. Certainly, the only other blog that I participate in, which is for my meeting, is all about information-sharing and being supportive (although it can be quite tough and challenging intellectually and morally).
Anyway, you’ll notice many different types of blogs and many different tones. I think the exercise might be helpful to you as you continue to explore the topics of blogs in general and why EphBlog is the way it is (and whether it could be changed, in particular). You have a creative, intellectually curious mind which will make the adventure worthwhile for its own sake, but something may also come of it.
As to parents of Williams students, maybe a more information-driven (rather than the debate-driven forum it frequently is) blog would be more appealing. Of course, EphBlog isn’t for any one group, but I would hope that there would be enough announcement/deeper look/history/question answering postings on the site to appeal to them, particularly on their first few visits to the “in-laws’.”
I personally find a courteous tone appealing, and personally am really very turned off by testiness, name-calling, self-righteousness, and the like, but I clearly have a much, much lower tolerance level for this stuff than some of the regular posters (as an aside, I would be tempted to say that the difference is largely a function of age, but one of my Williams contemporaries who comments frequently puts paid to that). If I had just stumbled upon EphBlog as a parent on any given day recently, I might never have come back (or I might have been captivated by a posting that rose above the EB tendencies that often turn me off, and eagerly searched for more, both on a daily basis and in the archives). I stay, or come back, because my interest in Williams is so strong, but I suspect that on a lot of days EphBlog may turn potential participants off before they ever really get involved.
And, as you point out, Soph Mom, there’s a lot of “misdicussion” about the way the College purportedly is now that is actually based on the way it was when alumni posters attended the school. That’s pretty evident to me, anyway, after reading EphBlog for several years (I see it in students’ corrections, current parents’ corrections, younger alumni correcting older alumni, faculty correcting alumni, etc.). Maybe some very savvy parents are quick to wonder how reliable EphBlog is as a window into what their child may be experiencing. I’m just speculating since I haven’t talked with parents about this. When you are on campus with other parents or if you are in touch with other parents, it might be a good topic to ask about.
I may do a little investigative blogging. A good comparison might be other alumni sites, if they’re accessible.
I think there is much to what ‘aparent’ says. I know when I first started blogging here, I felt fairly invisible. The regular, long-time bloggers can be somewhat oblivious to a new voice. They know each other well, (as Ken pointed out) and often talk ‘over’ an unfamiliar moniker. I would like to see a little more effort in this regard. It is no different than the civility you would extend to a new guest at a party. If they walk up to your group, you include them in the conversation. To do otherwise, is just bad manners.
Dick’s posts help a lot. They are easy to ‘drop’ into, and as well, he is a welcoming host/moderator. Other topic posters can learn from him, IMO.
Okay…enough of the Soph Mom/Emily Post lecture. I must be channeling my grandmother…
:-)
Here is a good example of what I am talking about with anonymity:
“aparent” wrote: “Derek, the least you could do is comprehend what I wrote — or at least not misquote me: I wrote: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …” and not “if you were you’d agree with me” which is more likely “horseshit” than what I actually said or intended — understanding is not the same as agreeing (or abandoning one’s principles). Or do you wish not to acknowledge that there’s a difference?”
Really? So someone calling themselves “aparent” can come in and insult my reading comprehension level? I’m sorry Mr. or Mrs. a parent, I have another book coming out in the fall. My reading comprehension skills are more than fine, and anyone here can go find that out by reading things I have written. This is the problem with anonymity in a nutshell and of course it slipped by because no one wants to acknowledge the problem because we’re all precious little vessels in EphGod’s eyes.
In the meantime you then go on to make a distinction without a difference. What you wrote implied exactly what I said it implied, which is to say, if I become a parent of an Eph someday I’ll be inclined to change my mind which is, as I’ve said, horseshit privileging of your biography, or what we can glean from the biography of someone who insults others under the cover of pseudonym.
Derek: Your advanced degrees and level of comprehension notwithstanding, I never meant to imply — nor did I imply — what you’re thinking (hoping?) my words did. Has your highly developed level of analysis “privileged” you to read into others’ writing what was never there to begin with?
For the record, I did not imply that you would “be inclined to change [your] mind,” rather that you would be inclined to “better … understand” why all the parents of current Ephs posing here do so without using their real names.
At this point, I feel that you rather enjoy making this into more than it really is, and agree with LG and KT that this sort of contentiousness on the part of many of EphBlog’s “regular posters” is a major reason why those of us “on the fringe” choose not to participate.
aparent, again critiquing me personally without me knowing who he, she, it is:
your exact words: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …”
Ok. Here is how language works. When you posit an if/then statement, the then is contingent on the if. So, “if” I become the parent of an Eph I will “then better understand” the viewpoint you are espousing. And the viewpoint you are espousing is a justification of anonymity that I have concistently opposed during my career as a writer. So you can say that you are not positing what you are clearly positing, yet your words make it quite clear that you are in fact positing what you disavow. Sorry — words have meaning.
But I’m glad you can imply that it’s my fault that it’s my contentiousness tht explains why folks like you (By the way — we have no idea who the fuck you are) don’t post more regularly, even though I’d place a bet that in the last month you have probably posted more comments than I have.
But by all means — keep making it personal toward me. It just validates my point about people who use their names versus those who do not have the courage to do so. And it just makes some of us who do wonder why the hell those who dn’t warrant such protection.
But of course, Derek, you are more than welcome to critique me (not to mention sling all sorts of profanities my way) simply because you choose to use your name. By the way, “aparent” signifies that I’m the parent of an Eph.
My post #53 stated: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand why all of the current Ephparents here post using bland screen names.” So “the viewpoint [I'm] espousing” is that if you someday walk a few steps in the shoes of the at-present anonymous Eph parent EphBlog posters, you may then be able to discern a sliver of the reasons for their wishes to post anonymously. It’s called empathy — it’s not an attempt to influence you to compromise your ideals or agree with the action, just to understand it. And I fail to comprehend why one must agree or condone another’s actions in order to understand them.
You say: “I’d place a bet that in the last month you have probably posted more comments than I have.” Sorry, but you’d lose that one, too.
Since mandatory disclosure in other forums hasn’t proven beneficial, why force it here? WSO is not anonymous, and its level of inanity and bickering has managed to surpass even ephblog’s at times.
I don’t like anonymity, but I am also not a regular participant. If I had bothered to remain anonymous ( I do choose to send anonymous contributions on occasion) I would have saved myself a lot of trouble.
Additionally, I know I am guilty of not being civil, but I often feel personally attacked by certain anonymous commenters, and their anonymity is generally the basis of my annoyance. I respect people like Ronit who condemn my actions/ things I say, but I also feel like if I met him in person we could potentially have a very interesting conversation since we seem to disagree about many things.
There is no possibility of “real-world” repercussions when I respond to anonymous comments, and it’s hard not to lose patience with them, but I know being confrontational in my response is like boxing with shadow puppets.
Anonymity should be a choice, even if it bothers those who choose to disclose their identity. It’ll keep me off ephblog when I should be doing work if I know I’ll just get ticked off.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Dick,
This is brilliant work. Better than the original. G&G should be flattered.
Jeff, fyi,
Speaking of Florida and the Jewish vote, I just got a link from a Jewish friend with Sarah Silverman’s “The Great Schlep”. It’s her ‘political effort’ at swinging the vote in The Sunshine State. I don’t dare post it here, and I give all fair warning that it contains possibly offensive material, albeit Silverman style, so please view at your own discretion.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
; - )
wink wink
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I am familiar with the great schlep, the Silverman video is incredible.
One final comment on Palin as I can’t resist — check this link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/03/palin-can-read/
Basically, the GOP has presented the country with an attractive robot that will read totally irrelevant talking points off cue cards, and then claim that voters don’t want to hear a VP candidate actually respond to questions once in a debate. That comment has not received nearly enough scrutiny — I mean, the audacity. Can you imagine if Obama said to Lehrer — good question Jim, but I am just going to read a passage from Dreams of my Father, because that is what the voters care about. Sheesh.
The fact that Tim Russert passed away before he could gently tear her mythology to shreds is item number 754,000 on the “proof that there is not a god” side of the ledger … (Cubs fans may soon have 754,001 …)
October 4th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Did you see stars?
One of the boys at NRO attribute it to sex appeal.
Nice piece. I like the Bill O’Reilly comparison. Too bad Lowry didn’t go all the way as I’m sure that’s what he was thinking.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
You know what — enough. End anonymous commenting on Ephblog. David Broadband’s fatuousness and racism and idiocy hidden behind anonymity is becoming unacceptable to me to the point where I am not certain I can contribute here any more. You wanna post, you gotta show a Williams link and you gotta do it under your name. Unlike most blogs it would not be difficult, because the Williams link would be the key. If you’re not grownup enough to post publicly, you’re not grownup enough to post.
dcat
October 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
derek,
I agree that its far past time to require some form of login or something of that sort…but how does a williams parent prove a williams connection. better to require log-ins and ban those logins that have repeatedly been abusive like broadband.
new board–any thoughts?
October 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I feel anyone participating in this blog, whether anonymous or not, must present a bonafide email address that can receive email.
The acid test to be admitted would be the return confirmation of a message.
When I really think about it, it’s not the anonymity of the writer that bothers me, its the assholinity of the comment.
I am for simply rejecting any source deemed a big enough asshole (and I must be careful to watch out myself) that the message does not appear from the get-go. Is this how spam is handled?
To paraphrase “I don’t know how to define assholinity, but I know it when I see it.”
Cut that asshole ‘Broadband’, regardless of 4th generation Williams legacy or just another troll in the hall of the mountain king, out of the loop!
Swart
… taking the liberty, after being in telephonic communication, of writing for President Rechtal Turgidley, Jr. who has had operational problems on the Quark Island Ferry to contend with this weekend.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Rory –
Parents have to give their offspring/students’ names. Parents act like asses, the student gets contacted to verify. Or just verify from the outset. Ephblog should be the domain of: Alums, students & faculty, parents, and others — in that order.
I don’t care about harsh debate, I don’t mind aggressiveness, I don’t even mind namecalling. I do mind someone like Broadband coming in and spewing inanities with no accountability. If he has a Williams connection, we should get to know what it is. Anonymity is absolutely unnecessary in this context. If anyone is writing things that could get them in trouble, they should probably assess whether or not they need to be saying those things.
dcat
October 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Actually, though, fuck it — let’s parse Broadband’s latest bloviations. I’ll place his words in quotations and preface mine with ***:
“Schlep is garbage, whether in the ghetto or “On the Street” as we have seen all week.”
*** I have no idea what this means. This is Broadband’s pseudoprofundity at work. Incoherence forcefully asserted is still incoherence.
“Our esteemed filbert proves that nuts are our “nuts”.”
*** Ditto. This is substanceless.
“Character and leadership accounts for the charisma that Governor Palin portrays. This cannot be denied as 70 million viewers observed this debate. This proves the potency and the primacy of her credentials before the observing public. They want to see her, though they have heard from the media about her inadequacy and rumors as to her unsuitability.”
*** 70 million might have watched, but in every poll of those who did watch, Biden was declared the winner. The probitive value isn’t in the fact of watching, but rather in the conclusions drawn from that act. This despite the fact that the bar was set so incredibly low — it’s as if she took the Robert Downey character’s words to heart from Tropic Thunder: She didn’t go full retard. She only went half retard and thus it somehow emerges as a quasi victory. A loss in the polls, but not as big as it could be.
“Hussein Obama understands this and responds with class warfare, Bush baloney and his standard of peddling fear and the need of further entitlements.”
*** These talking points amuse me. First, the “Hussein Obama” thing is, if not racist, at least knows racism’s zip code. second: what class warfare? It’s the GOP peddling the “elistism” trope, the “Main Street” idiocy. Obama and Biden are from demonstrably more working-class roots than their opponents. “Bush baloney”? Bush is fucking incompetent and McCain has morphed into Bush-plus. What entitlements? Be specific. What entitlements is Obama “peddling”?
“This election is about character and leadership, and not about the pied piper of schmooze and schlep, of deception and distraction.”
*** Look, McCain has run the most demonstrably dishonest campaign in history and if palin’s lips are moving the odds are that she’s lying. Andrew Sullivan has compiled a list of seventeen and counting lies from Palin. Hell, the first was the Bridge to Nowhere lie and she still has not been called on it.
“Mavericks are preferred to the mavens of deception and distraction.”
*** Again, what does this mean?
“We require heroes, rather than eunuchs and mentors, much less lecturers.”
*** Again, what does this mean? “Muchj less lecturers”? We have seen Palin 3-4 times speak publicly, and in every one she either lectured or tried to.
“Go McCain-Palin!”
*** Yes, please do. As far away as possible.
dcat
October 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
End anonymous commenting on Ephblog?
I hope not. That would be the end of me posting here. I am not expecting anyone to keep this blog up and running so PTC can continue to comment, but I’d be reduced to doing nothing but reading if anonymity went away. That would be a bummer.
I’ve had a good time commenting and being an author here over the years. It has been therapeutic for me. So for the sake of my sanity, I implore you all not to consider any other format!
The beauty of the internet is that it allows people to have open and honest discourse with others because the venue is anonymous. Anonymity is a must for the likes of PTC. Without it, I cannot honestly comment on much of anything.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
let’s be clear about what is being proposed:
you can still post as PTC. that’s fine. However, you’ll have a password and an email associated with that name. If you post racist material or threaten a fellow commentor, that account can/should be frozen.
no one will know your name. it is no different, really, than what we have now, it would just allow the moderators to ban certain people who have been nothing but trolls.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
PTC - I don’t think anyone wants to end anon comments, rather the proposal is to ban trolls and spammers from polluting this space.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“You know what — enough. End anonymous commenting on Ephblog.”- Dcat.
I think dcat is pretty clear that he wants to end the ability to post anonymously. That is fine; I understand his point, as long as people are aware that it will stop people from posting.
As far as an email address, Ephblog asks for that with every post.
Like it or not, Broadband (who is an Eph?) is capturing a big part of political argument being used against Obama. I happen to enjoy watching other Ephs respond to it. I think what offends other Ephs is that he is claiming to be an Eph and holding these views- or at the very least, pushing this kind of political attack.
The McCain/ Palin ticket is about ready to give us all a massive dose of the “he is not one of us” argument. They are not doing that because it won’t work. I think it is good to have people like Broadband around, given that about 25% of our country still believes that Obama is a Muslim. Consider also, that we concede the fact that it makes sense that people would not vote for a Muslim.
Although an end to anonymity might be pretty ambiguous to someone in academia, I doubt you will get any honest comments about the state of dining services from a server or dish washer if you out them. Part of this, is the ability to express views without the fear of retribution.
Can’t Ephblog ban people by blocking IP Addresses? My guess is that David is not going to want to ban anyone. Kane is a pretty substantial advocate for speech and open dialogue.
I simply do not see David Kane buying off on banning anyone for speech because it is controversial.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
PTC - it’s a little unfair to suggest that anyone wants to ban ‘controversial’ speech… I think you grant far too much dignity and meaning to the crazy rantings of a serial plagiarist.
Would you disagree if Ephblog instituted “Don’t be an asshole” as a universal commenting rule?
October 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I’ll reiterate: I can see no justification for anonymous posting. I have no problem with dealing with oppositional arguments — I sort of deal with it as a career imperative. But if I had my druthers, yes, PTC, you’d have to decide whether to man up and provide a name or else not post.
But if that does not happen we ought to do something. If that means active emails or whatever, that’s fine. But I also believe that if wer go this route one’s identity and Eph affiliation ought to be known.
I’d like to hear the justification for anonymity. And by the way — I don’t feel that we should have to sign off with our names. I sign off with dcat, I believe “Derek” comes up at the top of my posts. but i do not hide my identity and have been quite open about that as the years have passed.
dcat
October 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Ronit- I think being a jackass is in the eyes of the beholder in many respects. The arguments broadband uses are commonly accepted by many people in this country. I choose not to respond to broadband. I do not find anything particularly intriguing in his posts, but I do think some of the other bloggers here responses to him are interesting. If people stopped responding to Broadband, I would stop reading him. It is cool to watch sophisticated people respond to non sophisticated boorish arguments framed in collegial language.
Dcat- I am not going to man up for at least a couple more years. I am confident that there are other bloggers in here who have watched me post over the years and have a pretty good understanding that it makes sense for me to remain anonymous. I do not feel comfortable with any kind of official justification for anyone. How would that work?
Q- “What is your reason for remaining anonymous?”
A- “I want to remain anonymous because I cannot comment about politics in any official capacity given my current position. If I am known, my position is known, and my ability to have open and honest debate is gone.”
Q-“Well- what is the position that does not give you the ability to have open and honest political debate?”
A-”I cannot tell you that. I would rather remain anonymous and continue to comment.”
Kind of a pointless conversation.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Ronit -
Once again, you have got it in one:
“Would you disagree if Ephblog instituted “Don’t be an asshole” as a universal commenting rule?”
Well, I’d be all for it! And “Noli Podex” could become as popular as “Cave Canem” or :Caveat Emptor”.
Swart
October 5th, 2008 at 2:10 am
PTC –
If you shouldn’t be commenting, you shouldn’t be commenting. Anonymity is hardly a justification to cover something you should not be doing. It may be a pointless conversation to you, but that you are not willing to abide by standards that your job apparently sets for you is not a GOOD reason for the rest of us to have to accept your anonymity. Your professional ethical quandaries are not anyone’s problem but your own.
By the way — I actually cannot imagine what possible career field you could be in where you cannot even say what you do. Are you a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the 1980s? Even CIA folks can say they work for the CIA. That all seems a wee bit self-aggrandizing.
As for your perplexed query, it’s not all that hard. Here is how it would work: What is your name and what is your Williams affiliation? Won’t give it? Fine. You are welcome to read. You just cannot comment. If your super-important job status changes, please reconsider and let us know.
dcat
October 5th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Dcat- The point is, I am not barred from commenting on anything as long as I remain anonymous.
My intent was not to self aggrandize anything. My intent is to point out that anonymity on the internet allows people who normally could not speak their minds to do so, for a variety of reasons. We disagree.
October 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
dcat -
The anonymity is an issue for parents of Ephs as well. Would you have liked to have your parents all over the internet on a site your friends read? Maybe or maybe not, but it allows parents to be more free with their comments. I also am not barred from commenting due to my job, but I am nervous about certain topics that I don’t want people attributing to my government agency. Sure, I could be open about it and still post, but I’d have to seriously censor my comments.
I am all for having a username and sign-up system. Many, many blogs have that kind of minimal “membership” type requirement. It only makes sure that you have an active email address in order to post. If someone is that motivated to get around, they will but “real” names can be faked also.
As far as being forced to somehow how prove your Eph connection, that seems extreme to me. And it could be faked anyway.
At this point we have (so far as I can tell) no moderation in comments, other than obvious spam being prevented. I think there are basic standards (racism, threats of violence, plagiarism, etc.) that could be set without inhibiting free speech too much. Controversy is not a bad thing, disagreement is not a bad thing, but I think the Board should take up some issues of basic civility (very basic). As far as Broadband, etc. I don’t think some notion of “truth” should be required…so long as he doesn’t threaten people as he has done before.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I have just returned from the mainland to Quark Island after attending a sporting event (my first in many years that did not involve horses). Despite the boiler problems on “The Spirit of Turgidley” alluded to yesterday, all is now in order.
Upon return, I find a great deal of conversation on the rights of bloggers, including, alas, my dear friend Swart using totally inappropriate language for a ‘blog’ of this sort, dedicated to and in the service of those connected to a fine liberal arts institution.
In my new appointment as president (whatever that may mean in actual fact) and board member (ditto), I took it on myself to refer to the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ for insight into the issues of anonymity and freedom of expression. While recognizing that standards may be changed, here is what I found.
Anonymity:
“Are anonymous commentators welcome? Yes! But, as in the case of anonymous authors, you should be aware that anonymity on the Internet is not complete. We do not expose the authors of anonymous comments, but it is not that hard to do so.”
And so it seems to me that anonymous commentators are welcome. Indeed, PTC, Sophmom, PG, Parent ‘12 and many more anonymous commentators or those using a ‘nom d’blog’ have made splendid contributions to this ephblog and hopefully will continue to do so.
The point seems to be developing at a level invisible to the naked eye but probably resident within the bowels of the blog, a method of establishing a bona fide link to Williams (alum, student, parent, imterested member of the Williams community) while assuring anonymity.
Freedom of Expression
Are posts/comments ever deleted? Yes, but rarely. We have deleted posts/comments on request in a dozen or so cases. We have deleted excessively obnoxious comments (generally ones that refer to someone’s physical appearance) a handful of times. But, for the most part, EphBlog is a free speech zone. Most members of our community are well-behaved. Note also that anonymous comments are more likely to be deleted. Almost always, if you are willing to put your name on a comment, we let the comment stand.
This would seem to include the question of a “Broadband” (whatever that might be) under the observation on behavior.
The FAQ (see first reference) also includes this very interesting and even more pointed statement (although somewhat contradictory as to number of instances):
Why did you delete my comment?Because it was rude or obnoxious or off-topic or trollish. We delete comments all the time. We welcome deletion suggestions from readers. Our goal is to create an Eph conversation, an on-line analogue to all the discussion and debate which occurs in the classes and dining halls of Williams. Sharp comments and pointed rebukes are welcome. If you think that someone’s argument is stupid or racist or pathetic, then write that (and back it up). But (true) comments like “Dave is ugly” will be removed. The truth is no defense against a charge of bad manners.
Without regard to David Kane’s appearance (which my old roommate has depicted in various guises at times on these pages), the crux for me is:
The truth is no defense against a charge of bad manners.
‘Broadband’ has earned his commentary social probation.
I am afraid that in spite of my better judgement I too arrive at the position of “Noli Podex”
Rechtal Turgidley, Jr
President, Ephblog
Quark Island. Maine
October 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Having to prove an Eph connection is not a good idea. We would then have to rule out Midd and Wes students and recent graduates and Yale current students, all of whom have made valuable contributions to EphBlog in the last year.
And I’d hate to lose the parents (and, by the way, it could be that some students don’t know that their parents are blogging and their finding out could be the end of that participation).
In addition, reading carefully between the lines, we sometimes have Williams faculty and other staff posting anonymously, and I’d hate to lose them.
I’d hate to lose PTC, too. He has valuable perspectives.
For all of these people, yes, they could still read even if they couldn’t post but I also think we might lose them as readers if they couldn’t post.
#12 would be fine by me, but I don’t think it solves dcat’s problems. The way I deal with Broadband is that I just don’t read what he or she posts. It’s an imperfect solution. Going after the IP address would be better if the level of disgust with the racism, etc. is too high (I’m kind of innocent about what he or she posts because I don’t read it).
October 5th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Agree to disagree, I guess. I see anonymity as cowardice. Nothing anyone has said here changes my perspective. I believe in having the guts to stand behind my words. I guess I’m in the minority on this front.
dcat
October 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Geez…I come home from a weekend of stumping in a neighboring swing state (more on that later, perhaps) to find I am about to be ‘kicked off’ of EB! :-<
Derek,
As far as “anonymity”, You and I had an exchange about this once before where you seemed to agree with, and understand my need for a somewhat anonymous moniker. I am pretty sure any parent blogging on EB feels that same need.
However, though my moniker conceals who I am ‘on the surface’ of the site, my email is authentic, and completely reveals who I am to each and every author. What’s more, I have traded email addresses, and had exchanges with, several of the authors on this site. A few of them know my son’s identity as well. I would think it might be the same for almost every (regular) blogger on EB who isn’t completely identified by their moniker.
On the matter of ‘elimination’, or ‘probation’, I agree with you, and Ronit, and Dick…that EB should not be a ‘dumping site’ for the ridiculous, racist, sexist, rantings of a troll who is unwilling to make available to the board and authors, a workable email as well as a verifiable identity.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“ Ephblog should be the domain of: Alums, students & faculty, parents, and others — in that order.”
P.S. This is a little disappointing, Derek. It’s a caste system, of sorts. It makes me feel as if my value to EB is automatically made less or more depending on where I fall on this list.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Good Morning!
I had a note from a former frequent comment-submitter last evening:
“Mr. Swart:
WIth all due respect, would you email these few words to Rechtal Turgidley for his kind words and insightful thoughts.
Dear Rechtal:
Quandoquidem caput tuum in ano est, et stercorem pro cerebro habes, Rechtal
Podex perfectus es.
Cordially,
David Broadband”
Gosh, if he had only written as well and as tersely all the other times!
Quo usque tandem abutere, Davidus, patientia nostra? Quem ad finem esse effrenata iactabit audacia?
Biggus Dickus
October 6th, 2008 at 2:25 am
dcat -
Instead of worrying too much about who can post, let’s all focus on the content and trying to make it Eph-related. If it is productive Eph-related content (and not racist or sexist, etc. - but I guess there’s the rub), I don’t care who posts or comments. Indeed, I learn from postings and comments by people I wouldn’t otherwise hear, whether or not they identify themselves (eg., “our townie” PTC, the students and recent graduates from other schools, staff members, etc.).
Many of the people who post anonymously or using monikers say exactly the same things they would if they were signing their names every time or speaking with any of us face-to-face. Soph Mom is a very good example of that. I suspect that the recent graduate who styles himself or herself as “current eph” is another.
There are a very few people who are taking advantage of their anonymity to display very poor character (which I suspect we would also find them doing, although more subtly, if we knew who who they were and were talking with them face-to-face). In our frustration, let’s not write overbroad rules/procedures that throw out the baby with the bathwater, the helpful and polite desirable members of this community with the jerks and retrobates.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I just don’t read the jerk’s comments…and maybe I have a duty,(a very distasteful one) to read them so that I can see what he or she is up to.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am
dcat -
I believe I read that you recently received tenure. Congratulations, and best wishes for a long and productive career.
As you obviously know, things look rather different from the relative safety of academe than they do from what those running as “outsiders” tend to call “Warshington DC.” I don’t think PTC works for the Department of Justice, but look at what has happened in that department as an example: the hyper-politicization of what were once intellectual (and extremely high general competency) creme de la creme entry fellowships (and as a byproduct, along the way the injection of a huge measure of anti-intellectualism) and the blatantly political mass removals of prosecutors for purely political reasons (e.g., their failure to make politically-motivated prosecutions and/or the desire to replace well-functioning professionals with individuals chosen principally for their far-right political views - that is, with what might be called “true believers” or “hatchets”). Having “political” thoughts or even being thought to have them can be very dangerous and can lead to losing a job or career even where those thoughts aren’t central to or even directly relevant to carrying out the job/profession. Keep in mind that that job/profession may well be one that the person who possesses it rightly believes constitutes an important service to the country.
Many people have their heads way down. These are scary times (and the economic chaos adds another level of peril as those with families cannot lightly jeopardize their livelihoods; those who are fired or pushed out are likely to have an even more difficult time finding employment than those who are “just” caught up in the downturn).
As I understand it, PTC is not allowed, as a condition of his employment, to have his name associated with “political” comments, but is free to express himself anonymously. (And note that, even without today’s surrounding climate of fear, PTC’s practices are actually how many “Hatched” government employees chose to live out those strictures.) Many others work in situations where the climate is harsher, and would lose their jobs if it were known that they posted political commentary, even anonymously, of anything but the most rah-rah exactly-in-line-with-or-further-right-than-the-administration’s-announced positions. In addition, I take it that PTC travels extensively for work but needs to keep his travels a bit quiet, for which it is probably best to adopt a habit of anonymity and circumspection.
All of which is to - finally - get to my point. I thought you were harsh on PTC, and I don’t think he deserved it. I have a sense of where he’s coming from. I would prefer that our thoughtful public servants, rather having to deny the expression of whole parts of themselves (that is, what we might call “homo politicus”), could freely and safely participate in political and other discussion in very low-profile (i.e., anonymously) through communities of interest such as EphBlog, honoring an important condition of their employment and also free from worrying about unintentionally breaking it.
Besides, I really enjoy reading what PTC has to say in his role as “token Townie” and friend of several Williams generations. He has never abused his anonymous status (i.e., he is more than civil, doesn’t make racist or other such offensive remarks, and doesn’t flame people), is helpful, provides interesting content (swimming holes!) and clearly loves Williamstown and its surrounds as much as any of those who possess a Williams diploma do. I don’t think there’s anything he has ever posted that he wouldn’t say to any of us face-to-face (assuming he thought he could do so and still honor his employment stricture). This is not some cowardly two-faced creep, but an honorable man.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Well, verbose as that was, I sure left out a lot of words. Sorry. Hope the intended meaning is clear.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I cannot imagine EB without PTC’s comments. He adds so much. As well as most of the other seemingly anonymous commenters; ‘nuts’, aparent, parent 12, JG, current eph, anon ‘89…the list goes on and on. But as I said, before, I believe it’s okay if you are willing to provide a real and verifiable email.
I do understand where Derek is coming from, though. There are many anonymous commenters who are just plain cowardly. For instance, I think it is less than responsible when a commenters uses more than one moniker in a single thread. I did that accidentally when I first started blogging here…and then once since when I considered changing my moniker after being insulted by Broadband. (I quickly thought better of allowing that nonsense to intimidate me) But those who do it in order to ‘drop’ an insult without taking responsibility for it, are being cowardly, IMO.
Derek… as well, I think you add such a unique and valuable point of view to this site. So, I would hate for you to drop away over this issue. Surely we can find a compromise…perhaps one like the solution Rory offers?
October 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
SophMom –
First, while I would not use the phrase “caste system” I would happily establish a hierarchy at a Williams-related blog. Sorry, but no matter your level of engagement and commitment, Williams is not as much yours as your sophomore’s. It is not as much yours as it is mine. It is more mine than it is PTC’s. This is what being a student or an alumni means.
And Larry, unless you want to send me off into a tirade, don’t pull this crap about the “relative safety of academe.” (And please — lecture me about Washington DC — I’ve no idea how the city works, what with only a PhD in political history and a more-than passing acquaintance with the city. Is it really all that people say it is? Please do tell . . .) I’ve seen too many grad students and junior faculty members get into trouble for speaking up, no matter the merits of their cause. This seems a variation of the real world nonsense we’ve covered here before. I do not want to hear that somehow Washington is the apodictic example of a perilous world. If your job does not want you using your name, that’s the career you chose. I’ve seen no one chained up in the galley of a ship, brought up the Potomac, and at the tip of the whip forced to slave away in the Transportation Department. If your job has certain requirements or expectations of thinsg you can do or not do, it is your requirement to choose to adhere to those things or not to. Other people choosing to breach their ethical responsibilities falls into the categories of things that are not my responsibility.
Sorry I’m being doctrinaire about this, but as a junior faculty member at another institution I got in trouble for my public airing of views in a a couple of op-ed pieces and still kept writing under my own name, at significant career peril, so I have no patience for the gutlessness inherent in anonymity whether the things those people say are anodyne, provocative, smart, helpful, insightful, idiotic, racist, friendly, or forgettable.
Yes, I’ll accept any compromise along the lines of Rory’s, but I will continue to think less of our anonymous interlopers. Intellectual courage matters. Some have it, some don’t. (There are some cases where personal safety might demand anonymity — I’ve occasionally quoted Zimbabweans, for example, without giving their names. So yes — if anyone’s posting at Ephblog might get them killed or harassed by an authoritarian state, I’d accept their anonymity. But helping people get around professional agreements that they have agreed to, or that they may be hiding behind? Not so much.)
dcat
October 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Derek,
I still don’t understand your unwillingness to see that partial anonymity is necessary for some people, especially parents.
And why do you view it as cowardly, given that we are not really anonymous? As I said before, my identity is known to many of the bloggers. But my moniker protects me, and my family, from the likes of the few who have other than good intentions.
And could you define what it is you’re looking for? Would I be considered less anonymous if my moniker was Mom Mary, for example? Or Mary D?
I am curious if other Ephs feel the same as Derek? If so, please speak up. I really don’t want to be part of the site if that’s the case.
And Derek, if I used ‘caste system’ incorrectly, I apologize. I’m not sure how best to describe the feeling I’m having, but suffice to say, I do feel ‘less valued’ as a result of your comments regarding an EB ‘hierarchy’.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
SophMom -
I believe we both came to this site about a year ago.
For me, I just wanted to have a link to interesting people with whom there might be a common reference to chit-chat about various and sundry.
Little did I realize the focus on, attention to, and verbosity possible on subjects that while of some passing interest of a Williams connection could quickly devolve into wonkieness.
It has been my aim to add a quick spot of colour to the pages and where possible a light touch of humour. A Williamsy connection has not been a requirement for my subject selection nor will it ever be.
From your writing and your handling of one of the topics in the Winter Reise, it is obvious you are an avatar of “interesting”.
I believe the “hierarchy” of this blog is determined by the content and readability of one’s contributions.
On this standard, you are in the first echelon of participants, whether a parent, using a nom d’ blog, or actually an old man sitting in a small town in the great Northwest.
Glad you are here. Don’t even think of leaving. Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome!
October 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
SophMom –
Look, I’m sorry if you feel less valued. But I am not sorry for making what should be the uncontroversial, not to mention correct, point that at a college, any college, not all share an equal claim. I have a hard time believing that you believe that anyone has an equal claim to any place on earth. That Williams means more to its alums and students seems so obvious, so inarguable, so rational that I have a hard time beliving that you are actually feeling wounded over it, as opposed to that most common of modern responses: feigning anger or outrage for effect.
Next up on the list of grievances: I bet You are prouder of your children than I am. I bet You value your home more than I do. I bet Your memories mean more to you than they do to me. I’m shocked and outraged by such assertions that reduce my value, even if they are irrefutably true! Please.
Why is partial anonymity “necessary” for parents? I’m curious. It’s a rather broad rendering of the idea of “necessity.” Actually, scratch that: It’s misuse of the word by any reasonable definition. Ain’t no necessity in posting comments on a blog. If anything, that’s the opposite of necessity. If your kids don’t want you blogging, you maybe shouldn’t be blogging at Ephblog. If they don’t mind, why would your anonymity matter?
As I’ve said (and said, and said — methinks some people are being willfully obtuse at this point) — I’d be happy for us all to continue using our noms de plume, but with the ability for any of us to be able know who anyone is if requested. I have no idea why someone ought to be able to criticize someone else who gives their name under the cover of anonymity. So fine — be anonymous. I still see it as a cowardice issue, or at least as a courage of one’s convictions issue.
dcat
October 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Derek,
I never claimed that Williams “means more to me” than it does to you. And I am not “feigning anger or outrage”. I am just a bit uncomfortable with a system of hierarchy of which I’m at the bottom. I never thought of myself as being less important to EB because I’m not an Eph.
As well, when I described my reasons for anonymity to you on your site, you were fairly understanding. So now, when I try to explore what appears to be a stricter stance on your part, I am obtuse and cowardly?
I can’t really go into all the reasons why I think it’s wise to remain somewhat anonymous. Much of it has to do with my son. I feel it would bring him unwanted attention if I was openly blogging as his mom.
But at the risk of being called worse than “obtuse” and “cowardly”, I will stop trying to explain it.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
dcat -
People disagree. We aren’t getting anywhere positive with this. It’s been a really rough day for me. Let’s drop the parry.
If you want to propose that we follow Rory’s suggestion, dcat, I’d appreciate your formally doing that, including your suggestions about how the decision should be made. Is it a board policy question, to be decided solely by the board? Is it a question for the general audience ? If the latter, who will referee the decision making process? And if anyone posts a proposal, please include what will/who will be the enforcement mechanism under the proposal.
If you don’t like Rory’s proposal, dcat, do you have another suggestion? Again, same subquestions.
Does anyone else have suggestions they want to put forth for consideration?
Thank you for taking the time to try to solve a problem that is bothering some readers a great deal.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Dick,
Didn’t mean to overlook your comment. I so appreciate the wit and humor you bring to EB. Like you, I really enjoy the opportunity for conversation with a variety of bright and interesting people. I learn something every time I blog!
October 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
dcat, I’m still not sure how it makes one “cowardly” to want to keep a job. Kudos to you for being willing to put yourself out there but I cannot afford - literally - to lose my job over something as silly as a comment on EB that someone misinterprets (not an ethical violation, a misinterpretation). And while I will accept that it makes me a bit lazy to not want to have to censor every remark I make for the purposes of keeping my job, I am not afraid of having people know who I am. I have met several EB regulars in person (and will meet Soph Mom soon!), and others on the site knew me from my comments and initials alone. Anyone who put forth a modest amount of effort could probably determine my identity. But the veneer of anonymity makes my life easier. I admit it. I blog for the entertainment and discussion, so I want it to be easy.
You say:
So what is the problem then? Other than Broadband who purposely obscures, is there anyone whose name and/or contact information you’ve been unable to obtain? Or is this you “feigning outrage” over an issue that has not presented itself? Every comment comes to an author w/ email address attached. If you *really* wanted to find someone, you could email the author of a piece or David as the admin, and the introduction could easily be arranged.
I guess I’m confused why this is such a big issue - unless it has ever actually been an issue. Why talk of cowardice and hierarchies?
I probably shouldn’t bite on this topic, but it irks me. How connected you are to Williams actually isn’t necessarily about you as a student or parent or townie or professor - current or former. I know many students that haven’t set foot on campus since graduating, were detached during their time on campus, and hate the school. I know parents who go back every year to visit despite their children being 20 years out. Who is more connected? They have different frames of reference and bring different perspectives, but I wouldn’t necessarily apply a categorical ranking of who somehow has a higher status of Williams-ness What a pointless exercise. Ephblog is about “all things Eph,” which includes the town, the families, the staff, the faculty, and yes, the students. This isn’t a student or alumni blog. It is EphBlog.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Derek-
Aren’t you the official ephpundit? I might be mis-remembering. I would have thought you’d add something about the vp debate rather than start a debate about EB participants. I ask because I don’t see why the topic of this thread seemed to start with politics, then shifted with your request for no anonymous posts.
The reason I might not remember if you’re the ephpundit is that it’s difficult to keep track of who’s who. If the monikers accurately reflect who the person is, then I find it useful. Personally, I don’t care about the anonymity. I care more about the quality of the contributions.
I believe that “David Broadband” is a case by myself. I actually wonder if he could be diagnosed as schizophrenic. His writing is very much like “word salad.” I don’t read it for meaning. Occasionally, I’ll glance at it from a clinical perspective. I’m impressed that you and others spend time trying to interpret his prose.
I understand SophMom’s personal reaction. For me, at least at this point in my life, I’m much more interested in my son’s college than I am in any of my alma maters. If parents have to present the equivalent of a tuition invoice, I don’t think the policy would reflect well on Ephs.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Sorry about the typo, I don’t think it’s an unconscious slip- Broadband is a case by HIMself.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Look, I’ve expressed my opinion.
Larry — my poroposal is no anonymity.
And I do think anonymity is cowardly (though I’d love to see the reductio ad absurdum strain of argument that leads one to believing that commenting on Epgblog could possibly lead to losing one’s job).
SophMom asks why I allow anonymity on my blog — I think it is cowardly there as well, but I guess people are allowed to be cowardly on a blog not aimed at a particular community. And I simply delete noxious posts because it is my blohg, where as this one is a community’s blog. This blog is aimed at a specific community, and thus has different standards that I cannot impose.
I find it interesting that SophMom apparently cannot be disagreed with without it being personal. I disagree with you on anonymity. We’ve agreed on most things before. Sorry if we cannot keep the ratio at 100%, but yes, I see you feigning indignation that you should not feel.
Parent12 — you really don’t see where my call for no anonymity began? How’s about looking closer: Hint: Broadband’s comments. At a certain point enough was enough for me. And I was/am the Ephpundit, but as soon as the cries came up to end the Ephpundit experiment, and the poll went up, I had seen no sense of the resolution. My take on the VP debate? Simple. It seems that the folks advising Palin saw Tropic Thunder, advised that Palin not go full retard, she barely acceded, yet still was perceived as losing by all but her most ardorous boosters, and since then Obama has seen improvement in the polls. Plus, VP debates don’t matter.
JG — you really see Broadband as the only problem on this front? I guess your memory does not go as deep as mine. I seem to remember a couple of other kerfuffles (think: Nazis). And if you really think I’m “feigning outrage” over anonymity, I have some emails I can show you from anonymous people with regard to writing I have done where my name and affiliation was known but where my critics have been able to keep their identities hidden. I cannot change the world, but I can hope that Ephblog could be better.
And here is the “but”: Most people here disagree with me. I, unlike a few sensitive souls here, can live with that. Let a thousand flowers of anonymity bloom. I’ll continue to think those of you unwilling to stand behind your thoughts are cowards. But if that’s how we’re going to be, I’ll live with it. For now. But sorry — my work is on civil rights. There is only so much racism, subtle or otherwise, I am willing to countenance on a blog with which my name is associated. Some of you have different standards, fine. Just don’t expect them to be mine and don’t expect me to see bravery where there is the opposite.
I’m still dumbfounded that it is objectionable here to maintain that students and alumni have a closer association with their colleges than others, that it is offensive to assert that those who went to Williams have a higher claim on Williams than those who did not. I did not realize that we all resided in Crazytown.
dcat
October 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Derek: Several media outlets and firms forbid employees from blogging, anonymously or not.
That said, I don’t see the majority of commenters here as fully anonymous. I know the vast majority, and/or could discover their identity and confirm their connection to Williams within hours; reasonable discretion and respect for privacy prevents me from doing so without a good reason, but there is a reasonable level of “assurance” here.
Though we have other issues of ettiquette and courtesy here, BroadBand seems to be the problem, and their is no reason to generalize that problem to any situation outside Broadband. Without going into it, that problem seems to have been resolved– for now.
We could certainly improve the quality of this forum by having user profiles and other features– for instance, the ability to search a user’s historical posts, by category. These are not immediately trivial to implement, but they build “identity online.”
I am generally opposed to the tendency to anonymity online, and the cesspool it creates, FWIW, and thus have some sympathy for your position: if certain posters’ posts were linked to their identity, perhaps they would exercise more discretion. On the other hand, I see no indication of that, comparing “cloaked” posters to those of us who use “real names.”
No place for a dissertation; see Ethan Zuckerman (’93)’s blog for various well-grounded treatises favoring online anonymity.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Derek,
I never questioned why you allow anonymity on your blog. I only said that you seemed okay with my explanation (on your site) of why I choose to have a moniker. However, I am not anonymous to you or any other author on this site, so I am still confused as to what the real problem is.
And Derek… honestly, I am okay with the disagreement, but being called cowardly and obtuse did smart a bit, so it may have seemed I took that personally. As well, I am a bit hampered by the fact that my need to remain anonymous on the screen, is the very reason why I can’t adequately defend my position. If this seems cryptic, I apologize. If you want more of an explanation, you are welcome to email me.
Look, you have raised some valid points. You have pointed out that my need for anonymity on the internet, may be reason enough to stop blogging altogether. A fact I must seriously consider and perhaps discuss with my family.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Derek- did you see what I posted on this? I’d be curious as to your response:
October 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Man- This thing is getting uglier by the second. Republicans are yelling “kill him” as Palin spouts that he is a terrorist. Unreal. I bet the Secret Service is working triple time right about now.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:04 am
PTC: Ahem. Hard not to notice there’s been a metro cruiser parked, running, on every streetcorner for the past six hours…
October 7th, 2008 at 12:38 am
He was just in Newport News. We went to see him. Large crowd… about 18,000. The local party screwed up the venue though… about half the crowd (my family and I included) did not have a vantage point to see Obama. We could barely hear him as well. All they needed was a big screen and a few more speakers… and it would have been much better. A lot of the people in my section, left early.
Still. No way he lost any voters. If the crowd in Newport News is an indicator of what the returns are going to look like coming from black districts, McCain is going to lose Virginia. The Carolina’s are also in play. I do not think the “he is a terrorist” meme is going to work, not with the 401K statements this quarter. I just hope Obama survives this. A lot of people do not realize exactly how dangerous this is going to be for him.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:18 am
PTC: just got my late-night/early morning conference with Europe, so your question about China (etc) is in my mind again (again). No easy answer here: but I think the Central Banks’ position is probably still that the dollar has to take another 50% or so in devaluation, (etc.); to switch to my take (echoing Obama in the first debate), the US has to be in Latin America and Africa (etc)– along with China and Europe (etc). We’re behind in the game, far behind.
My own failure to engineer this in Mexico notwithstanding: I’ve been slowly emailing the pundit academics who’ve published on the issues, citing their comments and somewhat gently suggesting that they have little idea what they’re talking about. Maybe we’ve come to the point where I should be using the expletives that come to mind: damn right, at least, that China, Europe, (repeat emerging regional/sphere powers) now have more influence that the US.
I don’t know how to simply express the enormity and complexity of it: but to say it, Europe (the European states) were prepared to attempt to turn Obrador’s Mexico into a satellite state– a direct challenge to both the States and China. We vastly underestimate the new Europe and the other new supra-regional-superpowers: we’re not going to be the “hegemon,” the determining power, again, but…
But. It still seems to me that it would have been so simple, so obvious, to reform an alliance with Mexico, to define our mutual interests, to bring Mexico within the neoliberal economies and expand such a model throughout Latin America… to secure our “sphere of influence.”
I am dismayed that it did not happen: all the pawns were in place, we had the chance to attempt a new strategy… and…we just weren’t ready, to find a new place in the world.
And maybe I’m still fighting last years’ wars there: the opportunity is lost, the battlefield conditions have changed. But: it’s still a battlefield. Certainly China– Europe– the Middle East– Russia and its satellite republics– East Asia– are fighting a multi-faceted economic war against us. If China cannot afford to dump the dollar and tank the US economy tomorrow– if the rest of the central banks won’t follow– it will be able to in five or ten years. We have to form a response. We have to accept that {it} is inevitable, that there must be a strategic response.
And as long as we’re here: I’m no dove here. As long as we have power, we need to exercise it and preserve our advantages: but what we’re engaging in now is fantasy, idiocy and incompetence. We cannot be the central economy: what we can do– with enormous effort– is be better than China (et al), and guide the economies of our world to equal productivity– and try to chart the course through war and conflict and provincialism {…}
The security situation in Nashville tonight is interesting, not least in the fact that there seems to be little to no security around McCain, and Obama (at least via ‘official time’) got a three-hour closure of interstates and streets; as well as house-to-house searches and an FBI/Secret Service contingent that’s about as thick as I’ve seen… haven’t checked out the situation at 3— Lynwood (yet). And tomorrow… well, this is not Oxford Mississippi, and there’s going to be a lot more happening in the streets.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this thread and the points raised by Derek. I am hoping that the issues will be addressed and not just allowed to drift to the wayside as they so often do here, so this comment is an appeal of sorts to the EB board.
First of all, I believe that parents are a very valuable part of EphBlog. They provide a lot of information that EB might not otherwise get. I think David would vouch for me in that regard. Things change rapidly on a college campus, and many of the subjects discussed ad infinitum here, are not accurately viewed. There are a couple of topics in particular that regularly get the incorrect, ‘expert’ advice of alums that left twenty years ago. The few current students that blog, in particular Will Slack, are an invaluable source…but parents, especially those in good communication with their kids, are also a reliable source of current information.
However, I do agree that ‘anonymity’ can encourage irresponsible blogging. I had never really considered this until Derek’s comments. It was a bit sobering to think back on some of my own remarks, and realize the truth of this. I promise to try and remember that in the future. :-P
That said, I just don’t think there are any parents who will blog under their real names. To tell you the truth, I would almost think less of a parent who willingly puts that burden on their son or daughter. It is hard to explain…and I would love to hear it put into words by ‘Parent 12′ or ‘aparent’, or any other moms or dads blogging here.
Does this mean we shouldn’t be blogging? Maybe. But given what the site offers us, and what I believe we in turn, contribute, I am hoping for a little ‘leeway’ on this.
Proof of parentage is easy to offer, (at this point all the authors know who I am, and half know who my son is) as well as a verifiable email and identity…which in turn renders us ‘anonymous’ only on the ’surface’ of the screen.
Any thoughts?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
i think the issue has been largely resolved…at least for now.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Rory,
With all due respect. I’m not sure it is resolved. I would love to get some feedback from the other Williams parents on the site…all two of them.
And perhaps some feedback from the other women on the site…all four of them.
Perhaps I am exaggerating here, but I’d like to find out. Anonymity, and ‘feeling welcome’, ties into all this, I believe.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
SM: Count me among the first who would admit that I lack the courage to post with my real name — primarily because my parenting /protective instinct is so strong. Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand why all of the current Ephparents here post using bland screen names.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
‘aparent’
Any ideas of why there aren’t more parents, and women, blogging on EB?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
i meant it is resolved in the fact that derek’s idea about a hierarchy is not being followed.
no proof need be required, no log-in, until the current resolution no longer functions, we’re all good.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
As far as I’m concerned, within the context of blogging about “all things eph” on this site, an eph parent shall be defined as a submember of the general class of Ephs, of equal status with all others, and with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, until proven otherwise.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
SM: It may be that, given all their other endeavors, it’s a low priority. Maybe just reading the posts is enough — I know that I look forward to the laughs that the new EB president’s posts provide. It could be that they’re just not interested in commenting — and that may be partly a function of feeling like new in-laws at a large, extended-family gathering. Or, as a Williams alum pointed out a few days ago in a dkane thread referencing College Confidential, they may feel like the parent of an Eph who said this: “do not ever look at ephblog if you are trying to gain insights into the Williams experience. 95% of it’s posts are from a group of less than 10 left wing extremists whose opinions and comments bear little or no resemblance to the school my child is attending. If you were to reflect upon the Williams they portray, you would never want your child to go there. It may well be an interesting blog for some, but it has little to do with the current Williams College.”
October 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
aparent:
I agree…that Dick, and..ahem…Rechtal, are the best thing(s) to happen to EB since I started on the site. Dick’s posts are the ‘gift that keep on giving’. They provide a lovely chuckle, no matter what…and real depth, if you look closer.
As far as the comment about ‘left wing extremists’ on EB? IMO, that appears to be someone with a ‘hidden agenda’…or at the very least, an ‘axe to grind’.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Soph mom- You should be blogging if you want to. The point is, you can do it and remain anonymous … so you do not have to worry about how it could effect anything other than your views and ability to participate in this blog. That is the point. Don’t worry about it! The vast majority of the bloggers here disagree with dcat on the subject of anon comments. No big deal.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
On the hiarchy of all things Eph, I am a townie and damn proud of it! That means I am number 1! lol.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
PTC:
I get that. Nevertheless, thank you…to you, and to Ken, and to Rory.
However, this is not about pitting me against Derek. He raised some very valid points. What I am trying to find out, is why there aren’t more parents…and women…blogging on EB?
So far, ‘aparent’ has offered some insight. Her analogy about the ‘uncomfortable in-laws at a large, extended family gathering’, rings true.
But, IMO, EphBlog should be a natural ‘go-to’ place for new parents. As well, there should be more women. And more students. (although that is another discussion altogether. And perhaps one that Will can tackle.)
With that in mind, I am looking for more feedback as to why this isn’t the case.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Soph Mom: I can’t think of one general-interest blog that has anywhere close to 50% female participation in discussion threads… this is true even when the lead author on a blog is female (I can think of several excellent finance/econ blogs written by women which bear this out). Apart from blogs on some very female-specific niches, the blogosphere is an overwhelmingly male space. I would wager that the relative lack of female comments here is not an idiosyncratic EphBlog issue, but rather something inherent in the medium.
(I am perfectly willing to admit, of course, that my definition of “general-interest” blogs (on topics like politics or economics or finance or foreign relations) is inherently gendered, because it privileges types of discourse that are approved by the patriarchy, while my consigning blogs with high female participation to “female-specific niches” simply ghettoizes any attempts to speak of things other than the patriarchy’s approved topics of conversation. Our language may well be at fault here, and I may inherently be programmed to see “male-specific niche” topics as being somehow “gender neutral”, while I am simultaneously unable to include “female-specific” topics within the mainstream of the “general interest”. But I’m doubtful that this is the explanation.)
October 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I’ve been away for a bit and will be out of town for a few days so this will almost certainly be my last post on this question, but I do want to raise a few points:
1) I made no actionable assertions about “hierarchy.” Any assertion that I did is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually sloppy. I’m not rehashing what I’ve written here. If you must caricature me, fine. I suppose it’s easier for some people than engaging.
2) Let’s don’t pull the “I’m a parent of an Eph, you’re not, and if you were you’d agree with me” horseshit, ok? I think I have a pretty demonstrable record of standing behind what I write on issues a lot more contentious and frankly important than what’s going on here. It’s pretty halfassed to hint that someone might abandon their hard-earned principles if only they were at the same life stage as the person (anonymously, natch) making a contary argument.
3) This isn’t that big a deal to me relative to other issues that are out there today. But when the issue comes up I will defend my beliefs ardently. I oppose anonymity when someone criticizes a person who uses their own names. I do see it as an issue of intellectual courage. I do believe it’s nonsense to hide behind anonymity to skirt one’s professional ethics. I’m not changing my mind on this. I’m moving on now.
dcat
October 9th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Ronit,
Ephblog is my one and only ‘blog’ experience…so I really appreciate your input, which I know is based on experience, logic, and real examples.
However, if Ephblog is a site that is supposed to serve all things Eph…and in a sense, aims at being a microcosm of the Williams campus, then don’t you think it should examine a bit more closely, why it doesn’t seem to be able to extend participation beyond a majority of male bloggers?
October 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Derek,
You are taking this the wrong way. The thread has moved on. As I said before, you raised some very valid points. Honestly, you made me think about some things that I hadn’t even considered considered before your comments.
However, the discussion also made me question why EphBlog doesn’t have a more diverse group of participants. Maybe Ronit is right…maybe my expectations are naive. But before I leave the site altogether I am going to make a damn good, last ditch effort, at changing what I see to be bit of a ‘mens club’.
You are a blogger. You have a site. Is Ronit right? Is it primarily men who blog? Am I expecting too much to want more parents and women to participate on EB?
October 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am
And BTW, Derek, you may see this as unimportant, even petty. But I see it as an opportunity to explore the questions that are at the root of much bigger issues than the readership and participation of EB.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Derek, the least you could do is comprehend what I wrote — or at least not misquote me: I wrote: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …” and not “if you were you’d agree with me” which is more likely “horseshit” than what I actually said or intended — understanding is not the same as agreeing (or abandoning one’s principles). Or do you wish not to acknowledge that there’s a difference?
October 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
SophMom,
I think the issues are probably two levels of complexity beyond our current discussions.
It would be interesting to take a quick look at women’s patterns of internet usage (with some attention to culture) versus men’s. EphBlog certainly does function in some ways as a men’s club, and I think we would see some notable differences in what women (on average) use the internet for, and how.
An ‘adage’ re: online shopping from some years ago comes to mind: men ‘browse’ while shopping on the internet, taking a long time to evaluate and come to decisions, while women tend to be “in and out,” find what they need and purchase shoppers. Exactly the opposite is said to hold in “real life” “brick and mortar.”
Now that over 50% of consumer purchases are on-line, we may be talking about some serious changes in social life.
Anonymity also has a long history in internet (not only web) forums, and one of its primary (once touted as ‘liberatory’) functions was to allow people to construct ‘personalities,’ and explore options, outside of their (so-called) ‘real,’ day-to-day lives. This was particularly evident in early-90s Williams, where females who might have been particularly “shy” or reserved in day-to-day lives, or who were typecast into roles and identities that didn’t fit by friends and ‘reputation,’ led quite active online lives– creating personalities elsewhere, ‘posing’ as males to see how they were treated, etc.
I’m a critic of the Web: versus the (relatively small in terms of numbers) explosion of the early 90s, the Web is a narrow medium that restricts possibilities and breadth of communications, and its “cesspool” tendency largely comes from its difficulties in transmitting the kind of complex and ‘historical’ information necessary to communities and long-term, indepth conversations.
We get around this a bit on ephBlog because the pool of individuals is small and we have some long-term understanding of each other; but take in contrast something like the NYTimes or Fox News’ “comments” sections for articles. These really are “shoot off” sections: there’s very little conversation– much less long-term conversation– going on. Instead, you have 500 people more interested in expressing their opinion of the moment, than in listening or conversing– and then they go on to the next topic.
To try to actually answer the focus of your question, I think we would need an introduction “for parents” and a parents-focused section of the blog: both explanation and a specific place for parents. Walking into eB is indeed quite a bit like being the in-laws (or spouse!) suddenly walking into a family gathering: everyone knows years of references, history and innuendo, except you.
Rinse/repeat that for women, if you will, but I’m not sure it is a sufficient answer. Topical issues may matter– as the women of my generation experience health issues such as breast cancer decisions, I’ve thought about posting something on the topic– but, of course, we also need more women’s voices and stories and opinions.
The very format– a sort of spout-off– may be either hostile or misaligned with that. As flawed a work as “Women’s Ways of Knowing” would suggest that, “cognitively” as it is said, women (again as a group) work, and construct knowledge and discussions, in different ways. I’m tempted to add: they may be somewhat more complex thinkers, their cognitive processes may be harder to express or reduce to a straightforward first-person omniscient narrative, and they may be somewhat more resistant than the average male, to falling into the patterns and errors of this kind of cesspool.
I’ll end on a different note– a recent study I read suggested that women, in terms of long-term cost and productivity, make far better computer programmers than men. Why? Women tend to think of who will come next and make comments intended to guide them; men rarely leave comments, rather focus on “puzzle-solving,” quick and ‘innovative’ ’solutions’– and often seem to take a particular delight in obscure (and obscuring) formulations which are difficult and costly down the road.
Oh, horseshit!
October 9th, 2008 at 2:14 am
“Oh, horseshit!”
LOL, Ken… Your giving a shit…“horse”, or otherwise, is so appreciated.
Look, I grew up with a bunch of guys. I am very accustomed to the dynamics of being the minority in respect to gender. I learned I had to pipe up to get a word in edge-wise. I guess I’m doing the same thing here.
Mostly, I’d like to see more of a balance to the majority of male voices on EB. I think the site would benefit as a result.
The anonymity is an interesting ’side’ conversation to me at this point. It is, after all, something that women, and parents tend to take on in an effort to protect that which is more vulnerable… themselves, or their children.
As well, the whole question that you raise, of ‘on-line’ personality vs. real life personality, is fascinating, and one that JG and I will have the opportunity to explore soon by actually meeting. I’m looking forward to it!
October 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Derek- My apologies for the poor spelling and my poorer attempt at humor. It was a “shout out” to the masses and play into town and gown populism within the realm of all things Eph. A “caricature” of the oppressive cast system of this blog! I can reach out to Soph mom and overcome this brutal “blogthology” that keeps us down!
I am the ultimate elitist townie… just call me the Sara Palin of Ephblog… a townie with lipstick who pals around with local terrorists (students building pipe bombs on athletic fields) while advocating for PILOT to improve education at MT Greylock while I fight the evil that is “Mary Jane Hitler”.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Soph Mom -
If you have some spare time (I know: after the election), you might browse around various types of blogs. You could start with those that are linked to EphBlog, and then maybe dip into blogs that they link.
The largely female parenting blogs (usually about parenting very young children) stand out as quite different from many others, for example: information-driven and supportive, with little or no contentiousness or argument, lots of humor, and a lot of reaching out to form or sustain community. The subject drives that, but there’s no doubt that the gender of the majority of the bloggers matters, too (you may find it like being on a different planet from EphBlog).
I’ve never followed a blog about living with a major illness or disability (other than to read Sam’s account of life with his son, which constantly moved me), but I would think they would be much like the parenting blogs, with the subject driving the tone. Certainly, the only other blog that I participate in, which is for my meeting, is all about information-sharing and being supportive (although it can be quite tough and challenging intellectually and morally).
Anyway, you’ll notice many different types of blogs and many different tones. I think the exercise might be helpful to you as you continue to explore the topics of blogs in general and why EphBlog is the way it is (and whether it could be changed, in particular). You have a creative, intellectually curious mind which will make the adventure worthwhile for its own sake, but something may also come of it.
As to parents of Williams students, maybe a more information-driven (rather than the debate-driven forum it frequently is) blog would be more appealing. Of course, EphBlog isn’t for any one group, but I would hope that there would be enough announcement/deeper look/history/question answering postings on the site to appeal to them, particularly on their first few visits to the “in-laws’.”
I personally find a courteous tone appealing, and personally am really very turned off by testiness, name-calling, self-righteousness, and the like, but I clearly have a much, much lower tolerance level for this stuff than some of the regular posters (as an aside, I would be tempted to say that the difference is largely a function of age, but one of my Williams contemporaries who comments frequently puts paid to that). If I had just stumbled upon EphBlog as a parent on any given day recently, I might never have come back (or I might have been captivated by a posting that rose above the EB tendencies that often turn me off, and eagerly searched for more, both on a daily basis and in the archives). I stay, or come back, because my interest in Williams is so strong, but I suspect that on a lot of days EphBlog may turn potential participants off before they ever really get involved.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:40 am
And, as you point out, Soph Mom, there’s a lot of “misdicussion” about the way the College purportedly is now that is actually based on the way it was when alumni posters attended the school. That’s pretty evident to me, anyway, after reading EphBlog for several years (I see it in students’ corrections, current parents’ corrections, younger alumni correcting older alumni, faculty correcting alumni, etc.). Maybe some very savvy parents are quick to wonder how reliable EphBlog is as a window into what their child may be experiencing. I’m just speculating since I haven’t talked with parents about this. When you are on campus with other parents or if you are in touch with other parents, it might be a good topic to ask about.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
This is all great feedback. Thanks everyone.
I may do a little investigative blogging. A good comparison might be other alumni sites, if they’re accessible.
I think there is much to what ‘aparent’ says. I know when I first started blogging here, I felt fairly invisible. The regular, long-time bloggers can be somewhat oblivious to a new voice. They know each other well, (as Ken pointed out) and often talk ‘over’ an unfamiliar moniker. I would like to see a little more effort in this regard. It is no different than the civility you would extend to a new guest at a party. If they walk up to your group, you include them in the conversation. To do otherwise, is just bad manners.
Dick’s posts help a lot. They are easy to ‘drop’ into, and as well, he is a welcoming host/moderator. Other topic posters can learn from him, IMO.
Okay…enough of the Soph Mom/Emily Post lecture. I must be channeling my grandmother…
:-)
October 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Here is a good example of what I am talking about with anonymity:
“aparent” wrote: “Derek, the least you could do is comprehend what I wrote — or at least not misquote me: I wrote: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …” and not “if you were you’d agree with me” which is more likely “horseshit” than what I actually said or intended — understanding is not the same as agreeing (or abandoning one’s principles). Or do you wish not to acknowledge that there’s a difference?”
Really? So someone calling themselves “aparent” can come in and insult my reading comprehension level? I’m sorry Mr. or Mrs. a parent, I have another book coming out in the fall. My reading comprehension skills are more than fine, and anyone here can go find that out by reading things I have written. This is the problem with anonymity in a nutshell and of course it slipped by because no one wants to acknowledge the problem because we’re all precious little vessels in EphGod’s eyes.
In the meantime you then go on to make a distinction without a difference. What you wrote implied exactly what I said it implied, which is to say, if I become a parent of an Eph someday I’ll be inclined to change my mind which is, as I’ve said, horseshit privileging of your biography, or what we can glean from the biography of someone who insults others under the cover of pseudonym.
dcat
October 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Derek: Your advanced degrees and level of comprehension notwithstanding, I never meant to imply — nor did I imply — what you’re thinking (hoping?) my words did. Has your highly developed level of analysis “privileged” you to read into others’ writing what was never there to begin with?
For the record, I did not imply that you would “be inclined to change [your] mind,” rather that you would be inclined to “better … understand” why all the parents of current Ephs posing here do so without using their real names.
At this point, I feel that you rather enjoy making this into more than it really is, and agree with LG and KT that this sort of contentiousness on the part of many of EphBlog’s “regular posters” is a major reason why those of us “on the fringe” choose not to participate.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
In #75: Second paragraph, third line should say “the parents of current Ephs posting here.” I apologize for the typo.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
aparent, again critiquing me personally without me knowing who he, she, it is:
your exact words: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand …”
Ok. Here is how language works. When you posit an if/then statement, the then is contingent on the if. So, “if” I become the parent of an Eph I will “then better understand” the viewpoint you are espousing. And the viewpoint you are espousing is a justification of anonymity that I have concistently opposed during my career as a writer. So you can say that you are not positing what you are clearly positing, yet your words make it quite clear that you are in fact positing what you disavow. Sorry — words have meaning.
But I’m glad you can imply that it’s my fault that it’s my contentiousness tht explains why folks like you (By the way — we have no idea who the fuck you are) don’t post more regularly, even though I’d place a bet that in the last month you have probably posted more comments than I have.
But by all means — keep making it personal toward me. It just validates my point about people who use their names versus those who do not have the courage to do so. And it just makes some of us who do wonder why the hell those who dn’t warrant such protection.
dcat
October 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
But of course, Derek, you are more than welcome to critique me (not to mention sling all sorts of profanities my way) simply because you choose to use your name. By the way, “aparent” signifies that I’m the parent of an Eph.
My post #53 stated: “Perhaps if dcat becomes the parent of an Eph he will be better able to understand why all of the current Ephparents here post using bland screen names.” So “the viewpoint [I'm] espousing” is that if you someday walk a few steps in the shoes of the at-present anonymous Eph parent EphBlog posters, you may then be able to discern a sliver of the reasons for their wishes to post anonymously. It’s called empathy — it’s not an attempt to influence you to compromise your ideals or agree with the action, just to understand it. And I fail to comprehend why one must agree or condone another’s actions in order to understand them.
You say: “I’d place a bet that in the last month you have probably posted more comments than I have.” Sorry, but you’d lose that one, too.
But enough — life’s too short. Uncle.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Since mandatory disclosure in other forums hasn’t proven beneficial, why force it here? WSO is not anonymous, and its level of inanity and bickering has managed to surpass even ephblog’s at times.
I don’t like anonymity, but I am also not a regular participant. If I had bothered to remain anonymous ( I do choose to send anonymous contributions on occasion) I would have saved myself a lot of trouble.
Additionally, I know I am guilty of not being civil, but I often feel personally attacked by certain anonymous commenters, and their anonymity is generally the basis of my annoyance. I respect people like Ronit who condemn my actions/ things I say, but I also feel like if I met him in person we could potentially have a very interesting conversation since we seem to disagree about many things.
There is no possibility of “real-world” repercussions when I respond to anonymous comments, and it’s hard not to lose patience with them, but I know being confrontational in my response is like boxing with shadow puppets.
Anonymity should be a choice, even if it bothers those who choose to disclose their identity. It’ll keep me off ephblog when I should be doing work if I know I’ll just get ticked off.