Register blogs akin to cockfights | Napa Valley Register

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Dear editor, It occurs to me that the generally mean-spirited blogging culture that has developed on the Register’s Web site may actually be doing harm to the city. I personally enjoy reading the comments as a kind of legal form of cockfighting, but I fear people who don’t know better will assume the bloggers’ style and attitudes represent the prevailing point-of-view in Napa. Of course, I can’t wait to see how this letter will stir up the chickens!

Dave Posner / Napa

61 comment(s)

msetty wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:35 AM:

" Hear! Hear! Great description.

For the most part, I've decided to keep my "cocks out of the fight" given way too much mean-spiritedness, particularly from too many people who think anyone daring to disagree with them are "eeeeevvvviiiiillll," or at best, morally deficient. "

krusty wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Strap on your spurs, Mr. Posner! We commenters enjoy rushing to judgement and attempting to shout down those we disagree with by using our "fowl" language. It's highly likely that I know more about a subject by reading a short piece written to the editor than a person who has dedicated a significant amount of their time to the issue. "Cluckers" like us are very intelligent, therefore we know all and are not afraid to tell you.

You can find me right here, "pecking" away at my keyboard, doing my best to educate the naive citizens of Napa. Bring your best, because I won't "bawk." "

shareathought wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:38 AM:

" Mr Posner I agree with this:
I fear people who don’t know better will assume the bloggers’ ... represent the ... point-of-view in Napa."

And might add that when we are passionate, too easily fall into the "cutthroat" or name-calling vortex.

Thank You "

Tim wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:28 AM:

" Your comments gave me a good chuckle..the Register is one of the more controlling blogs..try going on the S.F. Chronicle blog....if you think this is verbal cockfighting...that blog would send you into the corner of the room in a fetal position. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:17 AM:

" Well said krusty...

We do enjoy good debate and are passionate in our beliefs. While many of us have very different points of view, the debate is everything. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:19 AM:

" How timely. I agree with krusty generally; I've learned a lot not only from NVR blog comments, but also from doing my own research in response to comments and in the service of my own comments.

That said, I agree with the letter writer as well. Comments I've seen here have opened my eyes to a trend going on nationally. A piece not too long ago called it "rudeness". I think it’s a lot of other things too. I get passionate about issues, and try to be respectful. However, comments intending to insult, rather than further discussion, ultimately have the effect of hurting me, and I can strike back with my own brand of derision. Over the past week or so, comments I and others have made which were candid opinions on various topics have been met with the following retorts:

"From the narrow minded [__] comes intolerance, nanny mentality, the double standard, real hate, and contempt for the greatest country in the World."
"no it's called educating yourself....[__] ought to try it."
"I know the tactical response of the [___] is to immediately annihilate the character of anyone who disagrees with them"
"...Because only the [__]-wing loons read it."
"Defy the environmental crazies"
"Your folks do not like to read those true news stories in the MSM."
"If the [___] had their way, we would live like Venzuelans...forced by the government to limit our showers to three minutes!!"
"The [___] believes in governmental control...the left is taking away our liberties at lightening speed."
(Political persuasion of insultees omitted to protect the insulters. Also, worst comments omitted to protect insultees)

These comments might be risible if they didn't reflect an effort to de-humanize those who disagree...and that's disconcerting, to put it mildly. "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:27 AM:

" tim is right....you want to see some real cockfights, look at the chron, the bee, the la times....this place is like a high tea compared to them "

diehard4ever wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:36 AM:

" This is the only place we can say anything without having to keep our opinions in check for fear of jobs and opinions formed by people who influence aspects of our lives by hiding behind screen names. Take that away and we can't say anything.

People today have been over-sensitized. They can't take a verbal hit anymore. It's pathetic. You need to realize that you will be disappointed, insulted and intentionally humiliated at least once in life. You need to deal with it. We can't have a nation pf wimps. Personally, I blame the people who introduced the idea of "self-esteem". The ones who believe you need therapy for every little thing that happens to you.

The thinner your skin the easier you bleed. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:39 AM:

" Mr. Posner, regarding your comment:
"I fear people who don’t know better will assume the bloggers’ style and attitudes represent the prevailing point-of-view in Napa."

I personally think the word “fear” you used in this statement was correct, but only in helping to explain what you perceive to be the “mean spirited discourse” from NVR bloggers.

Many people with opposing viewpoints do in fact "fear" their voice will NOT be heard or counted.
We are all passionate on certain subjects that involve ourselves and our community.

And the argument could be made that one of the reasons our community representatives make many of their decisions is based on the community input they receive or don't receive.

Mr. Posner, can you say that your passionate feelings have never struck someone else with an opposing view point as being "mean spirited"?

How many people have felt the same way regarding your feelings on a subject; that it’s not the prevailing community’s opinion?
Should your opinion be silenced or edited based upon their feelings?

Isn’t it from a person’s own perspective that they determine the “mean spiritedness” of another’s viewpoint?

Isn’t your editorial’s wording of “people who don’t know better” and “stir up the chickens” rather condescending and meant to in fact incite a response from the “chicken” bloggers you’re taking to task for being “mean spirited”?

Pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Posner. You have a great day anyway Mr. Posner. "

AmCanBlogger wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:00 AM:

" Mr. Posner has complained about what HE doesn't like to read here on these posts, and I notice those who are agreeing are themselves those on the left, who do not want nor desire to hear ANY complaints aimed at the current occupant of the white house. There. Hit that nail on the head, didn’t I? By the way NVR, just how long DOES a submitter need to be BANNED before they are allowed a second chance to tow the line? "

sickothis wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:13 PM:

" This just now occurred to you?

The best part is the nastiest commentators could care less how the Valley is perceived. And the Register could care less, too. "

steph wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:14 PM:

" Wow, I agree with Della and Angelina wholeheartedly.

It always amuses me, though, that those who don't like the forum also like to publicly bash it. If you don't want to be involved, then don't. But those of us who do enjoy the written sparring really have found a great place to exchange ideas. If we were bothered by the insults, we wouldn't participate.

Boy, if you want to see a strange marriage, then threaten this forum or make blanket disparaging remarks about those of us regulars, and we'll join together--radical left-wingers and crazy right-wingers--to support each others' right to air our views. It wouldn't be any fun without the "other side" particpating. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Well said, diehard4ever!

della, your retorts are often similar to those you listed. You use (and I have too) the preset ambush, like here where you stated these retorts came after you posted your candid opinions, thereby letting everyone know that the others are not. Then there's the classic 'wait for it' ambush. Pot calling the kettle black, indeed!

The NVR toned down things after the Chamber of Commerce whined, another pot/kettle example. It is more like a high tea conversation here now.

Check out some other blogs if you want to see some really 'fowl' language. Try some of the highly partisan websites on either side, where anything goes and there are no filters. I went to a partisan website on the other side of the tracks (I'm interested to see what they're cackling about) signed up and posted a response that they did not like although I didn't stoop to their low standard of language. As expected my post was jumped on and I was called names that would make an old sailor blink. The best part was that their webadmin tried to slip a virus back to my computer through the registration email address. However I used an email address that I only use at websites where I expect spam and nasties. I've been around the internet block a few times and have multiple safety layers so that little virus died before it got in.

My recommendation is if you don't want to read or hear what a website, radio or TV program, book, or newspaper has to say - simply go somewhere else! There's bound to be someone out there who agrees with you and you can bury your head in the sand and pretend the others simply don't exist. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:15 PM:

" freeport, those other comments may indeed be their candid opinions. And I think that's unfortunate.

diehard, I like to think I'm shedding my thin skin and replacing it with a tougher one. I'm gonna need it for my later years (which is pretty much now). I suppose that's one of the reasons I keep at it. "

Pharper wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Angelina - and those who agreed - self-esteem is by a construct. When your feeligs are hurt, do you sit and say, "well, it's only up be expected," and ignore it? Personally, when I'm insulted, I try to remember that other peoples' insults do not define me, and I'm willing to accept that I've made a mistake if that happens to be the case. But other people are not quote as impervious as me and, I guess, as you, and that's okay. No one denies that life is rough, but that doesn't give us leave to insult or be rude to someone just because we know that eventually someone else will. Why on earth would you purposely be rude and then play the "life is rough" card? It doesn't benefit you or your argument. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Oct 31, 2009 2:53 PM:

" When bloggers make statements such as "all liberals are bad" or "all conservatives are bad", it's such a broad attack, I cannot take it seriously. However, if they rephrase it like "this is the "part" about liberals or conservatives that I don't like" then I will actually read and respond to their posts.

Those posters who attack too broadly lose credibility. They don't really further any cause, or solve any problems.

I don't mind engaging in a debate fight as long as I feel it's accomplishing a goal beyond just stirring up anger. Stopping the fight is not the answer. Redirecting it toward being constructive is. But sometimes, we need to get downright mad about a subject in order to catalyze change. Taking "anger" out of a debate should not be the goal, though. It's ok to verbalize anger when it's done constructively. It takes on the appearance of a school yard fight when words such as "you are (fill in the blank)" are simply passed back and forth. "

steph wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:37 PM:

" della--
You're a worthy "opponent." I value the thought and reason you put into your arguments--and you take the time to back them up with references.

Nicely done, madam! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Oops, sorry; I meant PPF, not freeport. "

kevin wrote on Oct 31, 2009 5:05 PM:

" Anyone else find it ironic that Dave "enjoys reading" the blogs and "can't wait" to see the response at the same time as he criticizes the people who blog here?

I bet you watch Oprah, Dave... "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2009 5:29 PM:

" "The NVR toned down things after the Chamber of Commerce whined..."

Is that what happened? I was wondering.
Recently I made a fairly innocuous remark about Affirmative Action, and it got censored. No bad language, no hate speech, no name-calling, just plain political commentary. "

Cowboy wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:58 PM:

" As an arm of the current left wing administration, the NVR censors work their magic to shape thee truth to their subjective liking. Refusing to post comments has nothing to do with "the rules". "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:23 PM:

" Correct me if I'm wrong, Cowboy, but didn't the NVR back McCain in the election. I thought they were an arm of the right wing. I'm a Democrat, and I've had comments censored. I even had one not printed when I misspelled another poster's name! I always received an email telling me which rule it was that I broke.
Happy Halloween!! "

Paddy wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:50 PM:

" I think President Obama is awesome! Too bad about the economy though. I'm sure it'll be fine.
How about those crazy tea-partiers? Aren't they a riot! Hey! Pun intended.
Mr. Rogal sure knows what Napa needs, I'm so glad he's here to guide us. All that affordable housing will be great for Napa Valley.
Do you think the DUI list is harmful? Maybe not. I don't know, what do you think?

How am I doing Dave? Is that better? "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:40 PM:

" hmmm...and how many other 'liberal' papers endorsed Bush and McCain? "

krusty wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:49 PM:

" First, my comment was said with tongue in cheek (or beak, if you will) so I didn't intend for the things I said to be taken literally. I do think some people take things way too far or assume their experts on a subject they may not know much about though.

Second, I agree with some of the others who say the NVR is tame compared to other sites. I've had more than my share of comments denied when I felt they were tame. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 1, 2009 7:21 AM:

" So, after the "cockfight" comments...what is the next step. There are some very bright and intelligent people on both sides. How do we solves some of these issues?

Free Market or Government Control?

Innovation or Burueaucracy?

Liberty and Freedom or forced Servitude?

Choice or Lines?

Deregulation or Government take over? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Very well put, vocal-de-local.

And thank you steph. I feel the same about debating with you. You're knowledgeable and fair-minded, and your sense of humor can be quite engaging. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:23 AM:

" Or, to put it another way, FP56,

Corporate Takeover or Government by the People?

Profit Motive or General Welfare Motive?

Anarchy or Cooperation in Service of the Common Good?

Depletion of Resources or Sustainability?

Corporate Welfare or Equal Rights?

Well, it may not be perfectly analogous, but then I don't even know what time it is this morning, so give me a break.

....and the beat goes on.... "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 1, 2009 11:04 AM:

" freeport, good questions. But, our system cannot become a "free for all" do as you want, unregulated one. If every person walking this planet was honest, then yeah, we could probably allow Free Market to reign. The dishonest ones ruin it for the rest of us.

I also feel as though government has become too large, too quickly, and has developed it's very own appetite and agenda for survival. For example, our system of enabling a certain percent of the population to not work is difficult to fix because those employees who receive a salary for enabling are going to continue doing their job, without questioning the authority of the system that feeds them.

Finding a middle ground is complex. But tug of war between two extreme groups makes "center" a difficult place to reach. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:13 AM:

" pharper-
I have been raised to have thick skin. Insults don't bother me, because I know that most of the time you get insulted by someone because they are intimidated by you. They put you down to bring themselves up.

What goes on here and actual insults are different. Here, you are stating your opinion, and people get offended by it. I don't care if you are offended by my opinion. It's still my opinion, and I'm not changing it.

My problem with "self-esteem" is that society is protecting kids "fragile wittle feelwings" by not helping them (constructive criticism anyone?), so the kids are even more messed up than they would if you told them the truth once in a while... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:19 AM:

" diehard -- I think you might have a point about over-protecting children's feelings, and constructive criticism can be good for people.

However, many comments in these streams aren't really constructive criticism, they're unqualified rejection of the "other". How can I constructively use the comment "liberals are evil" (an extreme, but I've seen it written here), other than becoming something other than a liberal, which is hardly possible given my worldview?

When a child gets criticism from parents or siblings, they have some choices, which are moderated somewhat by chemistry, genetics, social skills, education, and the safety of unconditional love. They might withdraw; they might change their behavior and be whatever the person criticizing wants them to be; they might learn good ways to cope with their feelings and appreciate themselves anyway(develop tough skin); they might get angry and get back (develop prickly skin). We can't usually predict how criticism will affect them, but child development experts are much better at knowing what kinds of parent behaviors fit best with various child temperaments to develop the kind of strength you speak of. Self-esteem isn't a bad thing; but not taking into consideration what the child really needs to develop that self-esteem can leave them more thin skinned or prickly skinned than is useful for them or anyone else.

Some comments leave me at a loss as to how to communicate with the writers, just as my sister left me at a loss as a child, because she never had a kind word or supportive action toward me. There was just no way to gain her acceptance, until, of course, she grew up. Then we were really good friends. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:18 PM:

" There seems to be a common misperception that disagreement and debate equate to mean spiritedness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Debate in itself is not mean or disrespectful. In fact, some of us will go to the extent of coming to the defense of those we are debating when another lobs a hostile comment that person’s way.

It is not hateful to challenge the positions or statements of another in RESPECTFUL debate. That being said, there are those on the blogosphere that are mean spirited and simply choose to lob insults and rhetoric rather than engage in thoughtful dialog. And those that engage in this simply clutter the discussions with meaningless static.

As to how bloggers represent the community at large; I would say that these discussions, including the hostile comments, do represent the community as a whole. These discussions reflect the attitudes and thoughts people in a candid setting. So often, when we meet people face to face, they are offering an image that is not a true reflection of who they are. It is like the church parishioner that gives generously any time the church passes the plate, but refuses to buy shoes for his kids or allow his wife a new dress. What that person does at the church is intended to impress people he does not know, how that person treats his family is who he really is. "

fedupinnapa wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:57 PM:

" I often enjoy how the forum is hijacked by a small group of commenter’s to drive an agenda forward. This subject as a great example has already moved down the road of political bickering when no such subject was put forward in the original subject. Did you ever think this subject could be bigger than politics. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 2, 2009 5:51 PM:

" dellas-
I've been called blood-thirsty, intolerant, immature, uneducated, and a few other things I can't remember right now. And you know what? I don't care. I take it as a sign that the person I'm debating with can't come up with anything better to say.

I really don't care what "child development experts" say either. They are not kids. They do not see what happens. They do not see first hand what the kids whose parents tell them they're perfect to protect their "wittle feelwings" act like and they do not see what those kids whose parents would throw them in jail if they got caught boosting a car, doing drugs, stealing, etc (I KNOW mine would). If they did they would CLEARLY see that the second set of kids are FAR more successful. "

barefoot wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Sometimes, I will post a blog that totally contradicts my personal belief. There are so many people out there trying to politically correct that they miss half of everything. I think we have the right as well as an obligation to express every opinion, no matter who's feelings get hurt. Do you tell every overweight person that they need to loose weight? Of course not. However, chosing to remain silent may cost them their lives. Is that the "right" thing to do? Besides, the letter to the editor assumes that alot of people will assume other things. Better call my psychic to be sure of what might happen. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 2, 2009 7:05 PM:

" diehard -- don't forget we were all kids. Sorry to hear you're closed off to the knowledge that science has to offer.

Nice for you to be so tough skinned. The tougher the skin, the less one can absorb. Sometimes that's a good thing; sometimes not. I hope it works for you. "

skeptic wrote on Nov 2, 2009 7:24 PM:

" thanks to parpher, della, vocal and all the rest who spoke in favor of tolerance and a civil debate. it's up to all of us to show that most napa bloggers can be polite.
i read all the comments except those that say" it's all the liberals-conservatives fault". i've learned from past experience i'm about to learn nothing but a repetition of what some right or left wing talk show host said earlier that day.
i think the register strikes a pretty good balance in it's censorship of innappropriate comments.
you do need a thicker skin to post to the chron.
on the one hand , i'm for maximum freedom of expression. thank you for standing up for that, flamingo, but i also enjoy the 'high-tea" atmosphere where politeness is the rule.
as to the cockfights editorial , the bloggers do not represent most of napa, rest assured, or we are in real trouble.
i've sarcastically suggested that we support ludicrous positions and gotten no negative feedback .
examples include the mandating of clothing worn by all school district employees, the support of raping children in abu ghraib , and the gulag we took over from the soviets as documented in the latest "60 minutes " show on cbs .
the mandating of daily checkpoints all over, ala east germany and on and on.
i don't hear any outrage when these things are proposed so i don't think there's much danger in allowing what comments are made. i even suggested some schools be closed in order to fund the d.u.i. checkpoints that gathered 0% drunk drivers last time. when a recent article said that 3 schools could be closed due to a $500k shortfall. "

barefoot wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:40 PM:

" Wow, fell right into that one. Taste of my own medicine I guess. Did you see what just happened here? The editorial had everything necessary to achieve the end result; "Of course, I can't wait to see how this letter stirs up the chickens." Good job Mr. Posner. Got exactly what you really wanted, albeit you letter states the opposite. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 3, 2009 6:43 PM:

" dellas- Explain to me how that is science. Please.

To the second part:
I can distinguish when I need to listen and when I don't. I'm not stupid. If I absorbed most of the things I heard and took them to heart... o_O "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:50 AM:

" diehard -- thanks for the opportunity to explain.

The study of human development (which includes child development) is a science which depends on theories, research, data, and other scientific methods -- just as all other branches of science do.

Many branches of science take part in the study of human (and child) development -- biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, genetics, and others. Economics, education, religion, and history also contribute to this scientific study, and it contributes back. What makes it so exciting (to me) is that in order to fully understand the "how" and "why" of human development, nothing can be ignored. Like physics, which explains the workings of the physical world, human (& child) development explains the workings of the world of people.

There are many textbooks out on human development, if you want to glance at one. You're probably advanced enough to understand a good part of them. Students going into nursing (at least at PUC) are required to take a human development course. And of course, anyone training for early childhood education has to study child development. But I think it benefits everyone to have a better understanding of what makes us tick and grow, from cradle to grave.

As for your second part, it's not a question of being "stupid" or "smart". If you can shut out the negative noise, that's a good thing. But if people are calling you names because they don't know how else to talk to you, it's also possible you're setting that up by the way you talk to them. Take it from one who knows from experience.

Or not, it's your choice. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:23 PM:

" dellas-
Explain to me now how exactly you conduct experiments on child development. If these "Child Development Experts" design the curriculum we are using, then why are so many more kids doing so poorly in school than when my parents were kids?

I very rarely get called names, if ever. I consider myself easy to talk to. I am disliked by a few people because I have caught them in a lie that would be designed to humiliate me or my friends. "

dommale wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:32 PM:

" NVR Is nothing more than a right wing small town fish wrapper. No real news and who cares about a meth or dui bust ? It happens every day in a real city. Perhaps the name should be The Napa Enquirer. This will never be published by the NVR but I enjoyed sharing my comment. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:18 PM:

" Good questions, diehard; I don't know where to start in answering them. There are many books and articles written about child development research, and people spend semesters and years studying and conducting that research.

I have one book devoted specifically to developmental research. It starts with talking about research methods, then covers research in infant development, starting with newborns, looks at mental, social and emotional development, and continues through the different age groups.

As for the question about school success, I'm afraid I couldn't give a satisfactory "quick" answer. It's kind of like asking why haven't they found a prevention and cure for cancer yet? Scientists have done a lot of research, and know some factors contributing to cancer, and have developed some treatments that can help, but haven't quite licked it yet.

So I'll just quote from a college textbook, Understanding Human Development, by Grace Craig & Wendy Dunn.

"Success in school...is influenced by many factors. Children who are in poor health, who do not get enough to eat, who are preoccupied with problems at home, or who have low self-esteem do not fare as well, as do those raised in healthier settings. Self-perceived competence may also affect school performance....

"According to David McClelland (1955), the reason that some children achieve more than others often stems from the values of the culture in which they are reared...."
(p. 263)

That's just a tiny sample of many conclusions drawn from child development research. Applying that knowledge to families and schools is another issue, and child development specialists are no more in control of the curriculum than physicists are in control of how, when or where nuclear weapons are used. Maybe I'll find a website that gives a better answer. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:33 PM:

" Here you go, diehard. Enjoy!

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/research/child-development-research.htm

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/

http://www.norc.org/Aboutus/divisions/Education+and+Child+Development/ "

AmCanBlogger wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:23 AM:

" Tolerance and a civil debate from people who think that a woman has the right to terminate the live of her unborn baby in the womb? Fascinating! "

Raven wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:51 AM:

" AmCanblogger why are you so surprised? "

reason-ator wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:14 PM:

" dommale, no way is the NVR the Napa Enquirer.

It's the NapaVal Enquirer "

winemd wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:31 PM:

" While the study of child development is interesting, there are many studies that come to differnet conclusions. In my experience as a parent, there is no one answer. It's just not that simple. When I had my first child I read everything, asked everyone to do the best job I can. I got some useful information. But it all has to be filtered to an individual situation. What works for one or even most children, may not work for mine and my family dynamics. So I am careful when I read things about an issue or ask other people. I am even careful when I give advice to tell new moms that this is what worked for me, but that they will have to see if it works or find another method. I am by no means closed to reading or hearing what works for other people, but I do take into consideration the knowledge that I have of the individuals involved. No one is the same so there is no one method that works for everyone. "

jimtub wrote on Nov 6, 2009 12:41 AM:

" Hey die hard, nice of you to say no one can take a verbal hit anymore yet you proudly cloak yourself in anonymity. I've given up on this pathetic blogging for that very reason but was curious as to the reaction to this letter. Way to go, Mr. Posner!! Couldn't have put it better myself. Diehard, you and others like you are why this blog doesn't have as many participants. You wouldn't say these things in person yet you hide through technology and think we should have thick skins. Hmm, wondering who's the thin-skinned one... "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:52 AM:

" jimtub-
I am John McClain. Many bloggers on this site know me by my real identity, but you will know me as John McClain until you figure out who I really am. I am sure you will be surprised. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:55 AM:

" winemd-
EXACTLY.

jimtub-
You ARE right though. Some of the most vicious comments (from BOTH sides) come from those who never reveal who they are. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:01 AM:

" dellas-
Thank you. I'm not dismissing your info on this, but just a pattern that I have noticed in three different schools in two COMPLETELY different counties...

Those whose parents discipline them and teach them RESPECT always do better than those who hardly even get a slap on the wrist. Always.

Another thing I've noticed (NOte: Not racism)...
The Mexican Culture is HEAVY on respect. I LOVE that. Heavy on respect and values (most of the families, not ALL but most). My friends (a lot of which are Mexican), are all doing GREAT in school because if they didn't they probably wouldn't be physically punished, but reminded about having SELF RESPECT. "

surfdogge69 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:28 AM:

" Yeah Yeah Yeah..Just more Blog Blog Blog.... "

steph wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:34 AM:

" Oh, John McClain...

You made me giggle! Well done, chica.

;) "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:35 AM:

" diehard -- The McCain thing was funny. Since you gave jimtub the challenge, I won't let on who you are. (But it's true, jimtub, diehard is one of the few whose real name is pretty well known to regular Register online readers. I can't claim that sort of courage myself just yet.)

Winemd does have a good point -- there have been conflicting results and conclusions in research studies, and there is especially a tendency when they're reported in the media to focus on one aspect of a study, go with that, and ignore the rest. I agree that "it all has to be filtered to an individual situation," but much of what we've learned from taking a long, hard look at human development, through a scientific perspective, has been really useful.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments, diehard, and your interest in cutting through some of the world's perpetual silliness. "

skeptic wrote on Nov 6, 2009 12:51 PM:

" the solution to the abuse of freedom of speech is not to limit it . rather , it is more speech.
instead of electing to opt out of the conversation beacuse of degrading and insulting comments that try to pit us against each other , it behooves all polite bloggers to inundate the register with well reasoned arguments that avoid personal attacks and prejudice as examples of how mature adults engage in debates .
it's ironic that the younger bloggers seem to be more reasoned and use less pejoratives than us older , supposedly more mature ones . i appreciate the homorous use of sarcasm and other methods meant to stimulate conversation but it doesn't have to be mean spirited or always trying to put people into simple categories . "

Raven wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:18 PM:

" well said skeptic. "

diehard4ever wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:15 PM:

" steph-
Gracias! ;) We just had a Die Hard movie marathon...haha! "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:44 PM:

" Wow! what a journey, traveling through these comments. I'm trying to figure out whether or not Mr. Posner is correct, or maybe not? Anyone else notice the digression? Or is my perception totally out of whack? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Yeah, v-d-l; maybe I'm to blame for that. I just take off on a tangent sometimes. Easily distracted. Oh well. At least skeptic brought us back with a very useful approach to the issue: "inundate the register with well reasoned arguments that avoid personal attacks and prejudice".

That works for me, or at least the intention works for me. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:14 AM:

" Della, the digression did not begin with you.

I'm often first in line to jump on the distracted bloggers bandwagon lol! Ya gotta maintain a sense of humor about it!

In real life conversation, people rarely stick to one topic for a long time. Conversation evolves. Same thing happens here. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: