Posted Wed, May 26, 2:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Those of us that aren't paid to express opinions sometimes find that our personal opinions clash in various ways with what our employers or clients expect from their employees. It's the world we live in, and we didn't make it that way. Somehow the world coped with the *work* of Poor Richard, George Sand, and Cary Grant (among many other fine examples) with caring that they used other names with their friends. Dang it, TVD, after a fine column this week you're back to yelling at the kds on your lawn.

Posted Wed, May 26, 3:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Crosscut chatter is such an oasis of civility that it would be downright boring without a little contention.
I'm guessing, but I'd say Crosscut was founded on the conviction that civility is catching, not boorishness.
Whether or not that's the case, that's how it seems to work.

So hang in there Ted,—novel, sometimes crucial thoughts occasionally occur even to those we brand as irresponsible. It's the branding that encourages their worst traits. Or as Maura, a 9 year old, penned on her greeting card: "Hug me when I am bad, that's when I need it the most," aka lead by example.

Posted Wed, May 26, 3:42 p.m. Inappropriate

I was going to spell out my full name when I signed up on Crosscut. Unfortunately, the first question asked was "login ID" without revealing that this was how I would be identified in my posts. Still, anyone with an ounce of sense and access to qwestdex can figure out exactly who I am (here's a hint: first initial, last name). I've found that the overwhelming majority of ad hominem attacks on both authors and commenters come from people hiding behind assumed names. If people post comments that leave them afraid of what might happen to them if their identity is discovered, it may be with good reason. Whereas the comment of an anonymous poster may be rhetorically interesting, it seldom carries the heft of a comment that the author stands behind. Imagine if the founding fathers had signed the Declaration of Independence with names like "YooFoo", "ImAGenius", "Go4Broke", "GetBent", "R-U-Daffed" and other such monikers. It wouldn't exactly be the compelling document was then and is today, would it?

But then, I first started engaging in electronic discourse back in the 1980s, on Usenet, when almost everyone who participated was part of the same club: technology professionals. Nobody ever thought of hiding their identity. Why would you? It would be as counter-intuitive as sitting around in a tavern with your friends, all wearing masks. Then came AOL, with their "screen names" and suddenly every month was September. (And despite what you may read, I said that first. I've got the backup tapes somewhere to prove it.) No accountability. No responsibility. Just a lot of people lobbing mud balls at each other. Such a shame.

~uunet!camco!rosedale!dcb

Posted Wed, May 26, 4:17 p.m. Inappropriate

I found this column interesting. I found myself drawn to make comments particularly where I have inside information about a topic that would shed light on a comment typically made by someone other than the author. Where it's the author, I typically express my agreement or disagreement. My comments on this column would be that it is interesting, it is relevant/true, and there are always going to be comments that I as another commenter take with a grain of salt, as there will always be many "low information" commenters who simply don't know due to lack of information or limiting their information to skewed or very few and possibly a single source, and some of that population doesn't care to ever know. I try to enlighten them on that basis, but I don't check to see if they've responded, nor even if the author has. My view is that the comment area is to express my opinion(s) and/or add information, and there's more one can say without signing one's name, i.e. one risks less (such as one's employer reading it). The fact that some abuse this should be dealt with by removing them and their comments from the site, as I've seen done at many sites, either by the owner or even by other commenters. Re; TVD's position, he has the courage to express his opinion, not too unlike the elected politician or the appointed committee member. He risks the inevitable number of people who disagree with him, even those in his own profession. He, as well as the elected official, however, are paid to do so, while the committee member typically is not. To some regard, the saying "if the heat's too hot, get out of the kitchen" applies, and one way of dealing with the comments is to ignore them, as TVD suggests, with the downside he mentioned, while another would be to scan them and move past the ones that he considers out of line.

Posted Wed, May 26, 6 p.m. Inappropriate

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

http://aseriesofsmallacts.blogspot.com/2008/07/sign-your-real-name.html

Posted Wed, May 26, 10:54 p.m. Inappropriate

I find myself agreeing, but it would hypocritical to say that others should use their real names when I use a fake name. The reason for my fake name is that I am involved in local politics, and because of my affiliations I don't feel comfortable speaking my mind in a public forum. It's a shame really, and it makes me wonder if I let my concerns compromise my integrity.

Nevertheless, I think of my comment name as a sort of brand name, which I like to think carries a connotation of quality. Not every comment I make is a home run, but as a rule I want to make them worth reading.

There are people who spam comment sections because they have an axe to grind, or who get upset and make a comment without thinking. I have no problem with deleting these sorts of comments, though with appreciation for the fine line between quality control and censorship.

Posted Wed, May 26, 11:25 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't want to use my real name because I don't want to be "marketed" or chased by weird people, which has happened to friends who've used their real names. But I use the same pseudonym everywhere I post and some people know who I am (which is fine since they're people I already know and I'm not a politician or a professional of any kind). The really annoying pseudonymous commenters are those who choose a different name each time they comment; their writing style is identifiable but they seem to think we won't know them if they keep renaming themselves. Often they're plugging or slamming some politician (McGinn seems to attract a lot of the latter). There are some blogs, especially "opinion" blogs like Goldy's, that seem to attract really awful commenters, which is a shame since Goldy's a good writer and presents substantive issues. But I guess you can't really get rid of those guys once they accrete themselves to your blog.

Posted Wed, May 26, 11:38 p.m. Inappropriate

Ted, I'm glad you brought this topic up, as it's something I often think about.

I agree that the overwhelming number of hostile, obnoxious, and just plain stupid comments on the internet are a problem (although Crosscut is a bastion of civility compared to most places). Regrettably, it's a problem I've contributed to on occasion. I'm truly sorry for that, and please know that I've made a personal resolution to keep my contributions here and elsewhere as constructive as I possibly can.

As I see it, flaming on the internet is like road rage - given the distance and depersonalization of the situation, all of the standard cues that promote empathy and respect are removed, making conflict escalation all too easy.

Certainly, removing anonymity would reduce the negativity. However, I think you'd find it would greatly reduce the constructive comments as well. Commenting on blogs is a hobby for me, but I'd quickly give it up if it meant the entire world could instantly discover all of my thoughts and opinions, especially on controversial topics. I don't want to reveal myself in that way to everyone in the world, at least not without the benefits that come with celebrity.

I think the right balance is to require registration (as you've done) so that commenters have a consistent identity, even if it can't instantly be mapped to the real world.

And, try your best to ignore the negative stuff.

Posted Thu, May 27, 6:10 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for the many comments. I obviously did not make clear that anonymous comments hostile to me are not the problem. The same posters
often direct hostile comments toward other posters and, additionally,
toward third persons, by name, whom they wish to smear. Others purvey just plain low-grade rhetoric or unthinking opinion. Would they do so if they posted under their real names?

Authors of articles, by and large, are accustomed to getting negative reactions. The problem is that overall dialogue becomes poisoned and degraded and serious contributors get short-changed. Both the country and media have dumbed down in recent years. Anything which adds to that trend is, in my judgment, unfortunate.

Posted Thu, May 27, 6:33 a.m. Inappropriate

There’s a big difference between 1) someone who questions and challenges government officials and policies using a pseudonym, and 2) an anonymous government flack paid to fill comment threads with dissembling nonsense and post snide personal rebukes aimed at those who don’t mouth the party line.

The former serves an exceedingly valuable public function. The latter is nothing but one of the statists' tools.

Posted Thu, May 27, 7:50 a.m. Inappropriate

Anonymous commenting is important because it is fundamentally democratic. When writers are anonymous, readers must grapple with actual arguments, not with credentials or affiliations.

TVD already has a undue penchant for the "argument from authority," seeming to believe that his experience give him some special knowledge of policy-making that others don't have. It's the argumentative technique of a bully, but anonymous commenting erodes the argument from authority. It forces us to focus on the merits of the claims no matter who it is that's making them.

As for the "people are mean" strand of the argument, I don't buy it. How on earth did TVD survive decades of public service with skin so thin? If you're so bugged by insulting commenters on the web, don't write.

Posted Thu, May 27, 8:08 a.m. Inappropriate

Rhino: Please read my comment, posted above, in the comment stream. It should answer your question. It would be nice if all anonymous comments did, indeed, present "actual arguments" based on fact and knowledge. I have taken plenty of heat in the kitchen of public service and politics, and do not mind at all receiving it now, but it is readers and commenters who are the losers when anonymous posters do so irresponsibly.

Posted Thu, May 27, 8:23 a.m. Inappropriate

TVD,

I'm a writer on the web too (though I go by my real name, of course). So I'm well-accustomed to the nastiness that sometimes accompanies online discourse. Yet I've come to quite the opposite conclusion.

Bad arguments will out. "Low-grade opinion and unthinking opinion" are usually plainly obvious to readers. As a result, I think we're all better served by having it aired in a comment forum. And look, that stuff has existed all along; it was just hidden away by editorial page editors and other guardians of acceptable public discourse.

In my judgment, the state of public discourse has never been better -- and a big part of that has to do with the democracy of the web. It's a huge step forward when we can't see the gender, race, party-affiliation, or employer of the person we're arguing with. So what if it's a paid PR flak or lonely guy in a basement? It's irrelevant. All that matters is whether they've got coherent arguments based on verifiable facts.

Now, sure, I agree that some commenters are too mean. I don't like ad hominem attacks any better than the next guy who's on the receiving end of them. But it's a pretty small price to pay for the privilege of getting published in a forum with lots of readers. Take a stiff drink or go for a walk: at the end of the day, you're still the guy with the bully pulpit and your antagonist is some dude named "madison_ave" or whatever.

Posted Thu, May 27, 8:38 a.m. Inappropriate

I've noticed something about the better online sites. Commenters simply add their opinion to the previous ones. It has a layering effect. There doesn't seem to be the need to challenge the previous poster's specifics, even when the new post is a contradiction.

I think the WWU's Journal of Educational Controversy is an example of that in its highest form.

I used my real full name on every site I commented on at one time. I don't believe the site moderators do enough to protect posters from flamers nor do the authors always appreciate their assessment of the news being questioned. This seems especially true regarding politics. Reporters tend to fawn over elected officials and pander to politicians they have access to or have developed a relationship with and who does Mr. Everyday Citizen think they are criticizing or challenging that assessment?

And so, do I use a pseudonym or do I stop commenting?

Posted Thu, May 27, 8:49 a.m. Inappropriate

TVD, I like it that you respond to comments and enlarge on your original remarks. That practice is frequently helpful in defining your views and it often deflates the fierceness of your critics. Thank you for your patience and civility.

Posted Thu, May 27, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate

Rhino said it very well. Sometimes with anonymity the focus is on the content and you see some of the best discussions.

I think the comment history works against the discussion, as well. I am an open-minded person and still learning. I'm hesitant to think aloud if someone can and probably will search the comment history and accuse me of contradicting myself or hypocrisy. People evolve. If other people let them.

Posted Thu, May 27, 9:54 a.m. Inappropriate

I myself prefer to remain anonymous in a forum as such. When I would write to a newspaper, and sign my name, I could always request to have my name withheld. With no such ability here, we have what we get. Reading some posts that are nasty and mean I just skip them, I would think writers as a whole should expect to have extreme comments addressed to them. I know when I write, like I am doing now, I will encourage some fool to make stupid nasty comments about me. That is life. Life is very messy and if you want to participate in life, expect messy. And forums such as these do bring out the messy people in our world.

Posted Thu, May 27, 11:05 a.m. Inappropriate

You make good points, Ted...and we (truthfully identified, openly anon, covertly anon, or pseudo-anon) advance good points in rejoinder, rebuttal, etc.

The anonymous issue predates the internet medium and era, but is further complicated by it.

As you note, the old "Letters to the Editor" channel required vetting by editors, and names were attached to such communications. They also represented only the tiniest fraction of willing respondents; only one, two, or a few letters were printed on a given topic.

Now, posts in response to blogs/op-eds/editorials can quickly mount into the thousands (as anyone can verify by looking at the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, etc. following their publication of pieces with mass interest). Those posts mix very thoughtful, high-quality responses with the uninformed, abusive, and irrational--and as yet, it doesn't seem that any online publisher has a policy or method for separating wheat from chaff. In addition, many posters see the response function much as they do a "chat room" and post repeatedly, defending their own positions or critiquing others. It's the Wild West era of e-publishing!

Previous posts in response to your article capture the points I would make in defense of the anonymous respondent. Uppermost is the value of being able to offer comment about people and topics without being personally identified, for various reasons. You voice exasperation with this point of view, but I think it does have inherent value; the question in my mind isn't one of identity so much as it is quality and integrity of posts.

We're definitely in agreement that, to be blunt, dumb-ass users are a pain in the neck and degrade the environment of dialog.

Posted Thu, May 27, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate

There are two separate issues raised by TVD’s piece. On the issue of whether commenters should give their real names, I would prefer that they did, particularly when they engage in pointed personal criticism. I believe they should take personal responsibility. As a journalist, I never allow my sources to take anonymous shots at other people in my articles. But I can understand why some commenters may not want to or be able to identify themselves, given their jobs or positions.
The second issue is TVD’s attitude toward people who post critical comments about his pieces. I’m most likely the “frequent critic” he refers to, and I always use my real name. But TVD’s disparaging comment about his critics illustrates the accuracy of rhino’s (and quinn’s) excellent observations. He needs to put his ego aside and address the merits of commenters’ arguments, whether or not those commenters are hostile or mean.
And BTW, TVD, the commenters on Crosscut are extremely civil by the standards of Internet comment postings.

Posted Thu, May 27, 11:55 a.m. Inappropriate

"The people most hurt by this online clutter are serious readers who want serious dialogue about issues being addressed in articles."

I suppose I am bothered first of all by this "serious" stuff. When I first started submitting comments to online blogs, I too imagined that this new technological opportunity would lead to high-minded discussions and a general elevation of public debate. That delusion didn't last long. The very ease of internet communication guarantees that most of the postings will be half-digested blather. And this critique applies only slightly less frequently to the articles themselves. Crosscut runs some very good pieces but some utter junk as well -- and a lot in between. Further, only perhaps two or three contributors can honestly be described as "writers" in a normative sense; that is, people who have an exceptional feeling for verbal description, narrative development and a resultant distinctive and compelling style. The rest are simply "writers" in the purely functional sense that they are stringing words together on a page.

So this basic recognition has led me at least to a few conclusions:

-- Blogging ultimately can only be justified as a form of amusement. One's comments are seldom going to lead to an enlightening dialogue and never to a general elevation of public discourse nor a change in the trajectory of human affairs. You have to do it because you enjoy the mental exercise. Whatever blogging is, it's not serious.

-- In these stressful and potentially calamitous times, we all need ways to release the accumulated pressure of being incessantly bombarded by shrill nonsense. I mostly do this by taking long walks in quiet places, gardening and meditating. But blogging fits into the therapeutic regime as well -- providing concrete targets for venting pent-up frustrations over the accelerating absurdities of contemporary American life. And, happily, the blogosphere provides an endless supply of inviting targets: pompous buffoons of every size and description pontificating on this or that cherished grievance. So while I occasionally strive for something more profound, mostly I derive some modest short-term relief from my own personal stress by sticking pins in the balloons of the deserving -- "woofing", if you will.

Which leads to the question of anonymous postings. First, while I think that abusive trash commenting is a huge problem on many internet sites, Crosscut is not one of them. Crosscut is about as civil as it gets. Indeed, Van Dyk's complaints seem mainly to be focused on licking wounds received in other forums. I guess my hard-nosed response is simply that the internet is intrinsically a jungle. If you don't like it, go play someplace else. Maybe Van Dyk would be happier if he stuck with publishing university press books: no audience, but no abuse either.

As for personal reasons for preferring anonymity, the other comments have covered most of the salient factors. The explosion of electronic information means that the realm of individual privacy has shrunk. If you experience any aspect of a public life, blogging anonymously eliminates the need for constant self-censorship -- just one less thing that could spoil the fun.

Posted Thu, May 27, 12:18 p.m. Inappropriate

I think the practice of giving, or asking, 'real names' would lend an air of spurious authenticity to the web. In a sense, on the web it's impossible to be open or honest, no matter how much you may wish to do so. The web is an interface, or filter, if you will, through which we feed very small pieces of information, in most cases never amounting to the degree of familiarity we would acquire by 5 minutes in each others presence.

What we do, in fact, is create a web identity, just as we created our self identity in grade school and again in high school. If at first you gush, you will get feedback showing that some details convey meaning you had not intended, in spite of being true. Your true statements create a false identity, and of course this happens in 'real life' also, as most of us can blushingly recall.

Better, I think, to remember that what we learn on the web is not true, it is just a presentation we must judge on the merits- and this also cuts to the intensely democratic nature of the web. The comment threads allow thousands, or even millions of people to discuss in a forum free of rank or privilege. The whole thing, in fact, is quite new, and what the ramifications may be we can hardly tell now.

Beyond that, of course, is the simple practical question of how you would verify that the name supplied was 'real'.

Personally, I prefer to use a unique moniker, having found that googling my own name reveals a number of people who aren't me, but googling my screen name connects to my public self. My general policy is to supply my real name, via e-mail, to anyone who seems to have a legitimate reason to ask. I'm not afraid or ashamed to publish my real name, but I don't think it adds anything to the process.

Posted Thu, May 27, 2:29 p.m. Inappropriate

I find it fascinating how many people here, who post under assumed names, defend that practice as actually being virtuous. The idea that someone's made-up identity serves as a sort of respected "trademark", or that there is a "value" in being able to comment without being held accountable for your words; these are concepts totally alien to me. They strike me as rationalizations. And the concept that you can have a virtual "public self" totally apart from your physical being is a concept that expresses itself in the writing of fiction. It's not the stuff of an involved member of society. Maybe the writings are fiction. Perhaps the opinions of such people are as fictitious as their names. How would we know? Why should we care?

Posted Thu, May 27, 2:46 p.m. Inappropriate

I can see both sides' points. I do think that having a registration process is a good idea, however. Sites that allow truly anonymous posting are simply asking for it.

Posted Thu, May 27, 4:07 p.m. Inappropriate

At end of day an observation: I of course did not refer to online comments on Crosscut alone. I referred to all online dialogue in which anonymous postings take place. I understand the rationales expressed by those with contrary view. But, in the end, the rationales to me seem rationalizations.

Old media are fading fast. Online media increasingly are a principal source of information---and, one owuld hope, informed opinion--about important issues. Are we to treat related online dialogue as merely a source of amusement or a place where normal constraints can be abandoned?
If so, just where are we going to have informed and informing dialogue?
Certainly not from many blogs which proceed from an avowedly partisan or ideological basis. dbreneman's final comment seems to me particularly relevant.

Posted Thu, May 27, 4:47 p.m. Inappropriate

Here’s my proposal. As a satellite evening event to David Brewster’s annual Crosscut membership gathering, Crosscut should hold a masked blog-off, with all the anonymous commenters coming dressed in costumes portraying their online nom de plumes (or else simply wearing nametags over their costumes). The bylined Crosscut writers and the few commenters who don’t use nom de plumes would just come as our boring, straightforward selves. After getting sufficiently lubricated, everyone would participate in a postery slam, modeled on the poetry slams originated at the Green Mill in my hometown of Chicago. The slam would be divided into subject divisions (Puget Sound transportation, state politics, national politics, Tim Eyman, the homeless, deficit reduction, etc.), and the bylined writers and commenters would take turns letting loose onstage in whatever style they chose. The audience would select the winner by acclamation in each division. If the bylined Crosscut writer won, all the masked commenters would have to unmask themselves. If one of the masked or unmasked commenters won, the bylined writer would have to respond with extreme deference to the next year’s comment posts by that commenter, and give over every fourth column to the winning commenter (as Dan Savage sometimes does in The Stranger). Let the flames begin.

Posted Thu, May 27, 9:32 p.m. Inappropriate

If someone commits to the time and effort to write a researched and factual response to a blog posting by the time they actually post their response the blog is dead.

Comments are more akin to a cocktail party where someone might have a reasoned response, another might talking out of their hat and another might have a snappy comeback.

You say you ignore critical responses and yet you are troubled by them. That makes no sense. Would it be any better if someone was being critical with their real name? What troubles me is that you seem to want to take action either legal or physical for a harsh critic.

Posted Thu, May 27, 10:11 p.m. Inappropriate

During all of recorded history, there has never been any lack of silly and nonfactual commentary by people using their real names. Nor has there been any lack of interesting and worthwhile commentary by people using a pseudonym. The fact that my first name is not "Sarah" doesn't mean that what I say isn't what I would say if I were using my real name; I'm not maintaining two separate identities. Eric Blair used the pen name George Orwell; for whatever reason he did so, you couldn't claim that his using a pseudonym invalidated 1984 or any of his other writings, or demonstrated lack of courage, or anything for that matter. It was his choice and his choice didn't affect his writing. We really can't claim to know why people either change their names OR use pseudonyms in various circumstances. To imply that the reason is necessarily nefarious is unfair.

Detail: Golda Meir didn't use a pseudonym. She changed her name to a Hebrew version of her Russian birthname (Mabovitz), as did many of Israel's founders, to better identify with the ancient tradition of her new home. Ben Gurion's birth surname was Grun.

Posted Thu, May 27, 10:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Harris Meyer may be on to something. A verbal food fight between Crosscut writers and bloggers may not be high art, but it could be a step forward. It would at least get the insiders and outsiders talking directly to one another. That surely would be an improvement over the currently prevailing cocktail party model, where gray-bearded insiders just talk to one another.

But I think Harris needs to work on the reward and punishment angle a little more. The losing anonymous bloggers would suffer the immediate horror and degradation of a public outing, while losing contributors would only have to promise some vague form of benevolent future behavior. Not really balanced treatment, I would submit. The losing writers should be subject to some more bracingly equivalent form of on-the-spot consequence. I'm not exactly sure what that should be. But when in doubt, the old coconut creme pie face-plant is always good for laughs.

On a more philosophical level, it is worth noting that the quality and level of engagement generated by this essentially procedural topic has risen well above the Crosscut norm for substantive issues. What this underscores for me is that we are still in the early stages of figuring out how this medium actually works and that we need to talk more about its basic mechanics. Until we do this, any discussion of behavioral norms is premature. I thought the contributions from Sean, rhino and serial_catowner all showed a degree of insight into the structural demands of internet blogging and the questions we should be asking. Talking about "accountability" in the internet context is an atavism; it's a virtuous sounding 25-cent abstract noun, but has no actual relevance to the issues critical to the discussion.

Posted Thu, May 27, 11:56 p.m. Inappropriate

"Anonymous commenting is important because it is fundamentally democratic. When writers are anonymous, readers must grapple with actual arguments, not with credentials or affiliations."

BINGO, rhino. Back in Ted's day it was ALL ABOUT his pals in the Snooty Class and their mostly meaningless credentials. Name brands were more prolific on people than on running shoes. Us anonymice simply cannot know what we're talking about, cuz we lack the creds and pedigree.

The current era - where substance counts more than rare air - has been brutal for the Blethens & Van Dyks of the world.

Unless the anonymous author is anti-social or suffers from some kind of psychosis, quite often you will find more honesty and truth in his or her arguments. We Anonymous are not accountable to anybody or anything - but, we are also not beholden to anybody or any thing, either. For instance, I don't have to write to rile up the cranks and NIMBYs of the SNC each week. Or impress the White House Fellows / Ivy Leaguers Van Dyk seems to always be addressing.

If Van Dyk skipped the bland and generic claims about real transit options, and - instead - tried to explain exactly HOW his (always vague) alternatives could be applied more effectively, meanies like me would probably cut him some slack. But, as they say, you fight fire with fire. For TVD, the personal and vitriolic attacks he lobs at others are deemed fair. When others toss his garbage back over the fence...it becomes persecution! Ever notice how the most bombastic people are usually the first to get sensitive, reactionary and to cry foul?

MadisonAve is basking in the glow of his newfound fame and glory! Through the rather obvious & ongoing TVD bullying / passive-aggressive censorsing / enemies list method, MadAve knows he hit the peak of comment thread stardom! It's all downhill from here... MadAve has successfully stared at his navel, and doth declared it "good."

Posted Fri, May 28, 5:01 a.m. Inappropriate

I have no idea if I'm the "frequent critic who identifies himself by name", but I wouldn't be surprised if I am. Like many in the old media, Ted seems to be particularly prickly about comments about Sound Transit and rail transit. In short, he just doesn't like rail transit and continually pulls out the 'buses are cheaper' argument. As someone who has been very public in supporting light rail and opposing the monorail, I've had more than my share of attacks, online and in person, by name and by anono-mice. I've also been accused of somehow being paid by Sound Transit from people including TVD. Apparently, in his world, it's ok to falsely accuse people of being bribed with no evidence, simply because they disagree with him. This charge was started by the various groups of anti-rail people and smearing your opponent and accusing them of being paid off is a classic smear tactic. TVD fell into the trap of believing it simply because he got lots of email saying it was true. It's not unlike the Birther movement, where you make a false statement, repeat it, rinse, repeat, and voila, people come to believe it.

I think what this argument boils down to is critical thinking and critical comments or what TVD refers to as 'informed opinion'. But what the hell does that mean? Sometimes the most informed people are anonymous sources and whistleblowers. Sometimes the best comments online are from anono-mice and sometimes, they're just baseless personal attacks like MadAve. Perhaps he's a 2nd cousin of Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

Posted Fri, May 28, 5:54 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks to all who offered serious argument, one way or another. Too many of the last comments in the stream, regrettably, prove my point.

Posted Fri, May 28, 8:48 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for your regards, Quinn. I do not expect the world to be beautiful, silky and manageable. On the contrary, I know it to be often dangerous and less than we would want. That is why I take the trouble
to base my articles on knowledge, experience, and research among sources I know to be reliable. I particularly respect those, in agreement or disagreement with me, whose comments appear to come from the same basis.
It has been my experience that anonymous commenters, whether in Crosscut or elsewhere, are less likely to offer serious comment and more likely to say something they would not under their real names. MadisonAve, over a long period, has made postings filled with personal smears not only against me but, also, against others he lists by name who dare question
any aspect of Sound Transit policies or operations. He never addresses
the substantive issues raised by me or by other posters. Harris Meyer signs his name to his comments. But, for whatever reason, he feels compelled to make aggressive, hostile commments about whatever I write about any subject. The information sources he cites are highly partisan and/or ideological and, as a result, his comments come across as straight from moveon.org. He has a right to make them but I cannot take them seriously. Richard Borkowski also signs his own name. And I have never regarded him as someone who was destructive in his comments; I have found them, however, to be often ignorant or uninformed. Yes, that may be
the nature of the online beast. Indeed the world is not perfect. But
if media are to be used for personal therapy or venting, rather than for
informed discussion of things that matter, we all lose. We should set the bar high rather than low.

Posted Fri, May 28, 9:02 a.m. Inappropriate

I credit no one on the internet who does not sign their name. Thus I have no use for "services" such as Yelp.com, who profit from cowardly opprobrium. "Fear" is not a legitimate excuse. I have had plenty of letters published over the years in the Times and P.I. as well as other papers. I have never feared the consequences. Anyone who can't take even that much heat is not worth reading.

John Crosby
Fremont

Posted Fri, May 28, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate

Funny, there is a piece this morning in Alternet about living in a screen world and psychotherapy.

Posted Fri, May 28, 9:24 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks to woofer for improving my proposal. But how about extreme deference by the losing bylined writer to the winning masked blog-off commenter AND a pie in the writer's face?

Posted Fri, May 28, 9:33 a.m. Inappropriate

It's been pointed out that real-sounding monikers can be just as phony as the obviously manufactured ones being bandied about on the Web. If it makes anyone any happier, you can think of me as "Maurice Watteau" when I post. Now I think I'll mix myself another cool one.

Posted Fri, May 28, 9:37 a.m. Inappropriate

Final P.S. to Riehard Borkowski. Richard, I noted your frequent letters to the P-I and elsewhere defending Sound Transit policies and generally following the ST talking line of the day. I was informed by Sound Transit critics that the organization with which you identified yourself in your letters was subsidized by Sound Transit. I queried you about it. You said it was not. (I doublechecked and found that a former leader of the group was then on ST staff. In any earlier period, it might have received a subsidy...but not since you had begun using it as your identifier). I thus did not list your organization as among those receiving a subsidy. I checked with you, doublechecked elsewhere, and got it right.

Posted Fri, May 28, 10:23 a.m. Inappropriate

What should I see in my inbox this morning but this NPR piece, "Website Editors Strive To Rein In Nasty Comments" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126782677)? (And why are "to" and "in" capped?)

By the way, Sarah, Meir was the Hebrew version of her married name, Meyerson, not her maiden name, Mabovitz. You are correct about Ben Gurion and Grün.

Posted Fri, May 28, 10:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Painful as it seems to have been, this has been a productive exercise. One point that nobody alluded to is that the anonymity option is built into the process. If I blogged as "Joe Kluttz" rather than "woofer", you would assume that was my real name but have no way of verifying it. Short of a registration process requiring submission of a certified copy of a birth certificate, passport or driver's license, all blogging handles are presumptively fictitious. Some just look more conventional (and therefore more "real") than others.

I appreciate the hard work that Ted Van Dyk does in putting together his articles and have no particular desire to needlessly ruffle his feathers. But I really think that his level of hypersensitivity may make the internet a poor vehicle for his literary efforts. As I suggested earlier, the internet blogging universe is inherently a jungle. It is an open-access forum with almost no structural restraints. And the attempt to impose restraints can only make the forum less user-friendly and will push readers away, so it quickly becomes self-defeating. One may rue the rough-and-tumble nature of the internet and argue for creating a culture (or occasional pockets) of civility, but one must clearly understand and accept that on some days the tide will wash up dead birds and nasty gobs of black tar. Powerful technologies offer an enhanced capacity for both good and evil. You can work to promote the good and minimize the bad, but you have to accept with equanimity the reality of both. If you can't, you're better off dusting off the old Smith-Corona (is it still possible to buy carbon paper?) and respecting the existential limitations of your situation.

Finally, Ted, as for your last couple of entries where you peevishly take to task specific Crosscut bloggers, I thought that was an embarrassment, the worst stuff I've seen from you. OK, the criticisms may have been harsh and occasionally satirical and sarcastic, but they were not abusive. Not even close. Again, you need to be able to deal calmly with this modest level of pushback to function competently in this medium. If you are half the man you think you are, you will own up to your mistake and apologize for your intemperate outburst. (By the way, I would be happy to continue this conversation with you in private if you want. You have my permission to get my email address from the Crosscut office and we can take it from there.)

Posted Fri, May 28, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for the correction, Benjamin. That was an embarassing error.

See, people who post anonymously can actually be embarassed when they screw up, even regarding details about which hardly anyone cares. We're not simply idiots looking for cheap therapy (although that would be welcome).

Nor are we all motivated by "fear", John Crosby. I'm motivated by dislike of marketing pitches and idle Google users. The era of letters printed in newspapers is pretty much over (how many have you had printed recently?); it's a new world. But I'll step out of anonymity once just to see what comes into my spam box.

Sally Kinney aka Sarah

Posted Fri, May 28, 11:47 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks, Woofer, for your comments. I have come to appreciate most of them online. I am not, however, being peevish about a couple of the posters
who habitually are abusive and uncivil. If you regularly read their comments, and consider them OK, I suggest you read again.

As I and others have noted, I have been in the public arena for many years and do mind taking spears and arrows. I am not talking here just about myself but about an important medium in our society which is debased when
content goes to ever lower levels. Your message appears to be: accept this as the ways things are and get over it. No. Accepting the unaccepable ain't the way to go.

You have complimented me before for the work I put into my articles.
Actually, they are not all that difficult to prepare. I been involved in so many issues, over so many years, that I am able to respond knowledgeably to most of them without undue effort. I do check facts, however, and consult what I consider reliable sources before submitting final copy. I responded by name to some of those late in the comment stream because they deserved to be brought up short. You may consider this "the worst stuff" you have seen from me; I consider it necessary truth telling. May your weekend be happy and prosperous.

Posted Fri, May 28, 11:47 a.m. Inappropriate

Thx for the comment Ted. But really, having critics accuse people like me of accepting money to buy my influence is the oldest trick in the book. You weren't being informed, you were being misinformed. But like with the birther movement, the right wing noise machine knows that if you repeat a lie enough, eventually, people come to believe it.

My support of light rail had nothing to do with wanting or needing to support Sound Transit policies. Like many people, I voted for the RTA initiatives back in 1995 and 1996. I was in the majority obviously, since the '96 measure passed. I'm not sure why writing letters to the editor in support of a popular transit initiative would be the least bit suspicious. But I guess when you oppose something, everyone that supports it is fair game. As many people on this thread have already said, they can't speak by name because their employers would not look kindly and they could lose their jobs. I was lucky to have been in a position where my employer was very supportive of my pro-transit work. As President of People for Modern Transit, I often served as a mouthpiece for people who were unable to speak on the record. I was lucky that our group actually counted among our membership a sampling of transit engineers, bus drivers and even former heads of transit agencies. My policy statements were influenced by them, not by Sound Transit.

However, with the advent of web 2.0 and social networking, we found that younger people are not interested in attending meetings, planning actions and making comments at hearings or even writing letters to the editor. So in 2008, we shut down our group.

The younger crowd tends to loathe the establishment and simply prefer to blog and tweet. I don't view this as really having any effect since political lobbying takes face to face confrontation and action. Blogging just doesn't quite get you there.

I guess on one thing we can agree Ted. We both consider each other's comments to be ignorant and uniformed. I guess that's simply a matter of perspective and a matter of who is informing us. For me, spending a few hundred dollars a year to pay for light rail is a better deal than spending $6000 a year for a car.

Posted Fri, May 28, 12:47 p.m. Inappropriate

Ted, thanks for the kind weekend wishes. Now if you could do something about the weather, that would be even better.

To some extent we just may have to agree to disagree, but probably we are not ultimately that far apart. I mean "accept" in the sense of "make peace with", not condone or approve. You have to accept what you have no power to change because to do otherwise only leads to anger and misery. As for your ongoing disputes with other bloggers, I really know nothing about that (and my deeply principled commitment to blogging as fun, alas, will preclude further investigation). My comments in regard to incivility are limited to the four walls of this thread.

Keep up the good work!

Posted Fri, May 28, 1:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Ted, are people really confused by the @FakeTedVanDyk twitter feed?
I would have thought the word "Fake" was a big red flag. Also, Fake Ted claims to have hung out with James Madison.

Also, as someone who has participated in many, many online fora all over the internet, I believe the "real names" issue is a red herring. People will get mad and flame each other whether they use their real names or made-up nicknames.

Posted Sat, May 29, 7:32 a.m. Inappropriate

Like so much of Ted's writing, his comments here seem to wander in a dazed manner in a field of platitudes. One thing seems clear (but may not actually be)- he's simply not buying the idea that we have a public self and a private self.

How do you tell if the comment is of any value if you don't know the commenter's 'real' name? By bringing your analytical and critical skills to reading the comment. Is it logical? Is it supported by facts? My education leads me to think that if it is, you accept it, and if not, you reject it- regardless of the authority related to the name.

Having publicly advocated the legalization of marijuana for 40 years as often as the daily papers would publish an LTE over my real name, I especially liked dbreneman's idea that commenters could be held "accountable". Get in line, dbreneman, there's a red squad in Seattle that's had me on their list since I worked for Little Bread, the "communist" bakery, in the 70s.

Curiously, our Constitution was born in, and of, a community of anonymous commenters, offering fierce (and not always fair!) opinions in newspapers that functioned much as blogs function today. Seems to me that worked out pretty well.

Posted Sat, May 29, 5 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't like getting flamed, not because I think flamers should be silenced, but because I tend to respond in like. That said, I don't think anyone should be compelled to use their real name and/or censor their words. Let's hope the ranters and flamers who don't add to the discussion will get whatever it is off their chests and burn out or fade away. Or better yet, make a resolution to be more civil and constructive in the future.

I'm an optimist and I'm not confused by the Fake Sigi soccer blog, either.

Posted Mon, May 31, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate

Ted,thanks for this. I too have gathered a share of the extremely angry, caustic respondents who specialize in the ad hominem argument, especially when at the P-I. Occasionally I would invite them out for a cup of coffee. My invitation was always declined. I thought that telling. I favor people using their real names in responding to Crosscut articles. Whether it would change the tone I don't know. It just seems to me to have greater integrity. Tony Robinson

Posted Mon, May 31, 10:10 p.m. Inappropriate

It isn't necessarily telling when people do not want to go out for coffee with people with whom they disagree, or with whom they don't want a closer relationship than a simple comment. Anyone who writes either for a living or as an avocation will attract some critical comments; that's part of being a writer. Writers often have very caustic fights with each other, also; literary writers have been notorious for angry fights (sometimes actually physical, as in the case of Mailer and Vidal). Writers simply have to recognize that they're not writing in a vacuum (hopefully), nor are they writing to the "choir" (especially helpful for ex-ministers to remember!).

Sally Kinney

Posted Fri, Jun 4, 6:10 a.m. Inappropriate

I agree with pepper2000 regarding the 'pen names' being branded. I read these comments, and I recognize many of your 'real names', but many of you post under real names that I don't know. You have no more credibility than a branded name that I have come to follow, and know.

Write well, and make your points. There are many reasons why people must be anonymous, and since we all started writing all those thousands of years ago, it's been the way of societies.