The Sound of Silence
Not too long ago, I posted about bad check enforcement in Great Falls. I was quickly chastened about not having all the facts, receiving 10 comments in the first several hours after the post was placed up.
I did some more research, and it turns out my initial suggestions were correct.
And, instead of coming back to clarify their earlier positions, or even graciously admit that, just perhaps, I was right, all of the anonymous commenters simply disappeared.
7 comments:
Why don't you count how many posts came in BEFORE you edited your initial post. This is extremely dishonest of you. If people were so wrong about you, why change your post?
And if being anonymous is such a big deal, why do you use a screen name instead of your real name? Why do you edit posts that include your real name?
I guess just declaring victory is easier.
"Bill," you are absolutely right. I forgot that I did change the language in my post. And I checked, of the comments received; three of them came in before I changed my post.
I will note, though, in my own defense that, I received the following comments even after I changed my post:
"I am sure any other good journalist would investigate first to get all the facts rather than jump to conclusions."
"It's about you getting your facts straight, or taking some minimal effort to back up your claims."
"You were talking out of the wrong end and got called on it."
Further, I don't think I indicated that being anonymous "is such a big deal." I merely posted that these anonymous posters never came back. Assuming you are one of them who has now adopted a moniker, thanks for reading.
Finally, Bill, what about the real point? Don't you think I am correct that very specific procedures are required before violations of the law will be prosecuted?
This is the third time on this subject you have pointed out that posters were anonymous. You put that in there for a reason.
Also, I think it's fair to say that some of the posters might not have noticed your edit while still responding to your initial post.
And I can't speak for everyone, but I think one of the general criticisms was that you should have researched the subject BEFORE posting your unedited initial post. Hopefully, you've learned from it.
Ok, here you go. Once more, from the top. First, I clearly misspoke when I initially said there is a policy whereby "bad check cases essentially will not be pursued." I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
What I was thinking of was my recollection that there were certain types of bad check related crimes that would not be pursued. (A recollection that, not incidentally, turned out to be absolutely correct.)
So, I was attacked as being wrong. (I was wrong.) I altered the post less than one hour after the first comment. (Did I mention that, before I altered it, it was wrong?) As altered, I referred to a policy whereby "bad check cases will be pursued only if very particular, specific guidelines are met by the business."
Not good enough. I continued to be hammered by anonym...whoops...posters for not having my facts straight. (Of course, they "might not have noticed" the correction to the original post.)
Anyway, I then went and did what I wrongly failed to do earlier: I found the policy.
And guess what, I was actually right. There are specific guidelines that have to be met in order to have your bad check case prosecuted. Further, there are some crimes that have been publicly declared to be non-prosecutable. (But did I mention that I was originally wrong?)
Look, I have every right to get on here and post all the BS I want based on nothing more than my recollection. No commenter has a right to post anything. Nevertheless, I have never removed a substantive comment. I can take the criticism, even when I am wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Bill, you obviously have a dog in this fight, and I sincerely apologize that I offended you with what was never intended to be a significant criticism. (If you go back to the original post, I merely said that our new police chief might find an aggressive stance on little crimes reduces bigger crimes too.) But thou doth protest too loud.
By the way, did I mention that my original post, before I corrected it, was wrong?
Isn't there a way to block anonymous posting through blogger? It may cut your comments but then it forces people to take credit for thier own words.
Sure, I can change it to prevent anonymous comments. But why?
As I have tried to state once or twice, anonymous comments don't bother me at all.
The point of this post was that all these commenters, anonymous or not, laid into me for having my facts wrong. Yet, when it turned out that my facts were right, they vanished.
Well, except for bill here...
The problem with anonymous comments isn't that a person’s identity is unknown; it's that they are all labeled “anonymous” and you can't tell if you are talking to one or four different people. Make up a handle so that a true dialogue can be maintained. I wouldn’t fault anyone for maintaining some level of anonymity when discussing hot button issues on the internet. You have no idea what whack job maybe reading or replying to your post and might want to come over to your house to finish an argument. Besides knowing who GeeGuy really is ( a pimple faced teenage boy sitting half naked at the computer in his bed room) might unfairly take some gravitas from his arguments!!
Post a Comment