Readers say editors column missed its mark
Don't like anonymous comments? Ban them
This is just great. The editor of 'our' paper is arguing with an anonymous poster ('Defending anonymous on-line chickens,' News-Times, Dec. 12, 2007).
How do we know that the poster wasn't created by some well-meaning liberal just so you and others can take shots at him? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
You complain that nobody comes to your meetings. Why should we? You've been ignoring the issue of illegal immigration, over-taxation, and everything else that hurts this community.
When the cultural center in Cornelius was aiding illegal immigrants in getting papers, we told you and you ignored the story.
You know what our views are. You just don't want to acknowledge them. Besides, we have lives. That's why you only see anti-war protesters on the streets. The rest of us, some supporting President Bush and our troops, are at home or at work being responsible.
And what do you mean your views on Iraq are different? Aren't you glad we are winning? Again, I wouldn't be surprised.
BTW, the anonymous poster has a point. Just check the Grovenet archives. Some liberals use labels and personal attacks when they can't use arguments, which is most of the time.
It's not fun and after a while gets tiring so I'm not surprised that some may prefer to stay anonymous. There are small-business people in this town who worry that they would lose business if their views were known.
So stop whining. Require posters' names and argue with real people instead of, what very well may be straw men.
Attack on web critic backfired
The anonymous 'Truthful' has discovered a back-door method for achieving a bit more notoriety, which he seems to need, but I'm not convinced that your readers have the same need to know about it ('Defending anonymous on-line chickens,' News-Times, Dec. 12, 2007).
It's not your publishing the anonymous e-mails that bothers me so much; rather, it's the amount of space you give to someone so uninformed and barely literate.
Your approach seems to be this: Drag 'Truthful' into the open and expose him for what he is. To this end you allow him a brief rant and then publish an obviously informed writer's response.
Finally, in your coup de grace, you go after him yourself. I'm afraid, though, it's rather like attacking a mosquito with a tank.
The problem is this: the mosquito doesn't realize he's been attacked and, in fact, probably feels he's won the battle and been vindicated in his views.
His ego has been stroked, and he's probably bragging to his friends how he took on the liberal establishment-and won.
Besides, it's all so depressing, especially at this time of year. I recommend publishing only the letters of those who sign their names and take responsibility for their views, and leaving the anonymous chickens to the blogs for those readers who have the stomach for it.
But if you think the 'Truthfuls' of our community occasionally need to be dragged into newspaper sunlight, then make sure it's a brief visit. Visitors, as my mother used to say, begin to smell like fish after a few days.