Nick Carr on "blogs that can safely be ignored."

Comments

[Laurie]

I think that's just lovely, if it means that trolls and jerks will ignore me.

[Ginger Bush]

You need one of these here, Ed. And I echo Laurie's sentiments.

[mick]

some things are indeed better left unsaid.

[Ginger Bush]

Mick, what are you saying? That trolls and jerks should leave me, and others, alone? That civility and decency should be considered when making comments?

[mick]

Im saying civility and decency should be practiced by all at all times.

[Ed Cone]

Actually, not even the guy who came up with the little badge likes the little badge anymore.

[Ginger Bush]

Ed, so what are you 'actually' saying? That civility and decency shouldn't be a standard?

Mick- I agree

[Ginger Bush]

At least not a standard that Ed, as his inaction demonstrates, holds.

[David Hoggard]

Ginger,

Since you may not have seen it on the other thread, please answer the very straight forward question that was asked of you by several people after you admitted to calling the employers of two commenters who offended you....

"What did you hope to accomplish?"

[Ginger Bush]

David, it is already answered.

Now how about an answer from Ed in regards to his standards and allowing what was said to me (obscene and sexually degrading) to continue?

[Ed Cone]

Ginger, I plan to maintain the open comment policy I've always maintained, and to count on commenters to police themselves. I will intervene as I see fit, and to continue to do so by commenting myself instead deleting comments.

I've said more than once that I thought the comments in the other thread were not appropriate in that context.

I think that contacting the employers of the commenters was a gross over-reaction to those comments, especially in the face of attempts to discuss them with you on and offline.

I do not welcome your further participation at this blog.

[Percy Walker]

The butt of the joke in the previous thread was David W., not you, Ginger. Jim R. grabbed a convenient weapon to club his friend, David, who simply responded. Your solipsism, fervid imagination and victimological scab-picking are the problem. Two good people are justifiably concerned about what someone as fucked up as you, whose every misery is flaunted on the Internet, might do next.

[Laurie]

Oh god, I've been echoed by Ginger. Please don't hold it against me.

Thanks, Ed.

[Roch101]

"David, it is already answered." -- Ginger

Ginger, can you please point us to the answer or explain what you mean? I saw several people ascribe motives to your actions, but no explaination from you. Can you please clarify?

[Ginger Bush]

What Jim did was sanction abuse and sexual degradation of women by his 'joke'. No one deserves that, and I certainly do not deserve the way I have been treated here.

Percy, you are without a doubt one of the most profane people writing and responding anywhere on blogs in Greensboro. Money may be coming out your ears, and you flaunt it constantly, but money never did and never will buy simple common decency.

I write about health issues, then I am responded to by you in a profane manner. I've written to support the homeless, the poor, the disadvantaged, elders, worked to help anyone I could in disasters most of my life, providing relief when dams broke, tornados destroyed towns, and more. I have done nothing, nothing to deserve this.

Laurie did not even read what Kathy had written before jumping all over me. But instead of acknowledging she was wrong, she continues her hateful and sarcastic banter here.

And Ed, finally, you are the ultimate liberal hypocrite. It's not appropriate for any other woman in our society to be treated in this fashion, but I am made the doormat here, on whom all manner of abuse and spleen can be spewed, with your implicit sanction of it because you do nothing to stop it. Would you sanction your daughter responded to in this fashion, your wife? Would it be a 'lame' joke then? Would you tolerate 'Fecund Stench's' remarks to them?

[Ginger Bush]

Roch, the question was answered in the last comment I made on the previous thread.

[David Hoggard]

Ginger, It is clear to me that you are not to be treated like "any other woman in our society", because you are unlike any other woman that I have had interaction with in said society. (Thank God)

We've all learned that when you enter a conversation we'd better slip on our kit gloves so as not to offend your thin-skinned, and oh-so-visible-on-your-sleeve sensibilities.

You come across as a vindictive "victim" when, in reality, you have shown yourself as a self-righteous victimizer of the highest order.

You must find it puzzling that NO ONE, male or female, has said one word of support for your misguided attempt at doling out a warped sense of justice. My guess is that you find yourself alienated quite often in real life, too, because you come across on blogs as a very unpleasant and anti-social woman.

You were dead wrong in doing what you did and no amount of "but, I am the victim here" will ever convince anyone otherwise. You screwed up.

I read your lame explanation of what you hoped to accomplish by your actions. But you failed. You failed because you were completely in the wrong and utterly nasty in protecting that chip you so proudly display on your shoulder.

[Ed Cone]

I see no need to argue further with Ginger, and I hope other commenters will consider the matter closed.

Ginger took offense at comments that might reasonably be regarded as offensive, as has been frequently acknowledged in my comments.

She then went overboard in her response to that situation.

She shows no signs whatsoever of recognizing, or even pausing to consider, that her actions in response to the comments were disproportionate and dangerous; it is this last aspect of the situation that seems to me to render futile any further conversation and recrimination.

Let's move on.

[David Hoggard]

Agreed.

[Roch101]

Thanks Ginger, I had indeed missed your last comment in the original thread. I appreciate you pointing me to it and I must say, I appreciate you answering the question directly.

As kindly as I can (we've met before, Ginger, and seemed to like each other just fine, so please don't think I'm your enemy), I'm going to suggest that you think about two things.

First, I think you misunderstood Jim's joke. It wasn't directed at you. It used your comment as a set-up for a joke-between-friends directed at David. Using your comments as a set-up detracted from the seriousness of what you were trying to say (Jim and David even immediately agreed to you objections), but they weren't making you the butt of the joke. They weren't attacking you and they weren't belittling you. Which leads me to the second thing I'm respectfully asking you to consider.

You explained, in part, that you called the employers with the hope that "it would bring about a change in the way people relate online." You were trying to bring pressure to bear on David and Jim. I think it's fair to call that intimidation. Aside from the fact that that kind of intimidation is bad for the free exchange of ideas, it is more grievous because it was motivated by your misunderstanding of what happened, by the fact that it attempted to include parties not even tangentially related to the discussion and because David and Jim were willingly engaging you in the comment thread up to the point where you instigated your intimidation tactics.

As I've tried to make clear, I'm submitting my opinion for your thoughtful consideration. I've been slow to respond because I wanted to be very careful about the facts, and now I think I have it right. I think you took unnecessarily drastic action based on your misunderstanding. Could I be right?

[Ginger Bush]

David, you have really twisted this thing around just about as much as it is possible for someone to do so. I was scared, frightened by the email itself, I made that plain. Jim and David's response was humiliating and made fun of the entire situation, both mine and Kathy's. So they were hurt and we weren't? Baloney. And, as a matter of fact, both Mitch and Meblogin offered support. So once again, you aren't correct.

The remark "Ginger, It is clear to me that you are not to be treated like "any other woman in our society", because you are unlike any other woman that I have had interaction with in said society. (Thank God)" is sordid, demeaning, and malicious, and it's plain that it's nothing more than a carefully worded attempt to make this whole thing, again, my fault. It is an excuse to treat me, and any other woman you choose to disagree with, in a sexist, ugly manner, to sanction your own and other's offensive and obscene behavior here. It's completely unacceptable.

Roch- Once again, David's response- his 'apology', was really a continuation of the jest, and hence a disregard for any humiliation or fear the email caused me or the remarks made about and to Kathy caused her; it wasn't sincere. You ignore that and try to work around it. You have attempted to cast my calling Landmark and UNCG as an attempt 'to include parties not even tangentially related to the discussion.' They made public comments online, and I felt these posts by Jim and David did not (and in fact do not) reflect their standards.

Ed, once again, your remark that the comments made by Jim as "might reasonably be regarded as offensive" is prefaced and hobbled by the ambiguity of your language. In fact, you ignored the questions I asked below when I wrote:

It's not appropriate for any other woman in our society to be treated in this fashion, but I am made the doormat here (again), on whom all manner of abuse and spleen can be spewed, with your implicit sanction of it because you do nothing to stop it. Would you sanction your daughter responded to in this fashion, your wife? Would it be a 'lame' joke then? Would you tolerate 'Fecund Stench's' remarks to them?

No, you would not. You ignore what has been done and said to me, and focus on your buddies Jim and David, even to the point of trying to imply that my calling in regards to their remarks was disproportionate and dangerous. You have chosen words throughout that you hope will make an association between me and those words for your readers, employing the subliminal power of suggestion to further try to harm me by negating the original context of this post, trying to blame, and damn me.

[Ed Cone]

There is nothing ambiguous or subliminal in my words, Ginger.

The remarks were not appropriate. Your actions in response to them were disproportionate and dangerous.

Again, I would ask commenters to let this go, and move on.

[Ginger Bush]

Wrong, Ed.

There is nothing ambiguous in your words "might reasonably be regarded as offensive", for such an example, is there? Finally, in the last post, you have clearly stated their actions "were not appropriate". They were way beyond not appropriate.

As I stated, and gave a few examples for, you chose words throughout the exchange on this topic that you hoped would make an association between me and those words for your readers, employing the subliminal power of suggestion to further try to harm me by negating the original context of this post, and their statements, trying instead to blame (or should I use demonize here?) me.

[Ginger Bush]

And please explain why you think my actions were dangerous- that makes no sense to me at all; I did not wish to cost either David or Jim their jobs and as far as I know, it has not. If I have harmed them in this way I'd like to know about it so I can try and make amends.

[jw]

"I called Landmark and UNCG because I believed and still beleive these statements, in the context in which they were made,(and I've pasted them below for reference in this long thread) by Jim and David, don't reflect well on the standards of either the News and Record or UNCG. I felt these institutions would probally not want themselves associated with these kind of comments and that they needed to know about them."

If you felt these institutions would probably not want themselves associated with these kind of comments, what, exactly were you expecting them to do? The above statement of yours is quite different from "I did not wish to cost either David or Jim their jobs..."

[Jim Rosenberg]

In case anyone cares, I am starting to daydream about ways I could harm people who are keeping this discussion alive by defending me and/or attacking Ginger. Right now, my fantasies involve miniaturizing myself and doing stuff to make them feel itchy. If people don't let it die, I don't know where it will lead. Please stop.

[Ginger Bush]

Speak to Jim and David, some sort of admonishment. I did not send a letter to, or speak with the Chancellor of UNCG because, after reflection, I felt that was too much.

[Ed Cone]

I ask commenters once again to end this thread, and let this matter rest. No last words needed.

[Ginger Bush]

I have something I want to say, and it is to Hoggard. A warped sense of justice is not what I have; justice becomes warped when you try and blame me for something I am not responsible for. I did not cost, to my knowledge, anyone their jobs, and what I have received in return here is way over the top.

The comments made on blogs in Greensboro every day, including this one, are far more antisocial and profane than I have ever been, and many are made by the very same people who have responded here. Please do not attempt to have it appear otherwise.