ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Bravo Dennis for trying to help the communication on the Ojai Post and in our small town. I have recently spoken with two Ojai residents who read the blog but will not post with their name due to the percieved hostile nature and personal attacks that happen. Perhaps this can help heighten our awareness of each other. Every person on this planet has similar needs and aspirations and we could try and recognize ourselves in each other. The following words are what I try to live by (though I know I don't always succeed).

"Aware that words can create suffering or happiness, I am committed to learning to speak truthfully and constructively, using only words that inspire hope and confidence. I am determined not to say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people, nor to utter words that might cause division or hatred. I will not spread news that I do not know to be certain nor criticise or condemn things of which I am not sure. I will do my best to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten my safety."

- Thich Nhat Hanh

If the OjaiPost cared about that, they would take the anonymous feature off of the comment posting. If people want to speak freely about something and remain unknown, its there decision.

Well, "who cares", I do care about it, and that is why I was happy to post Dennis' editorial, which I felt makes some important points. I also posted a similar editorial back in October of 2006, and have referred to it a number of times as warranted.
http://www.ojaipost.com/2006/10/on_civility_and_respect.shtml

There are a few things to address here.

1) allowing anonymous comments has without a doubt increased participation, and I believe as a result, readership of the Post.

2) allowing anonymous comments has resulted in some very interesting information to be shared with the Ojai community by "people in the know" and others who would like information to get out to the community, but would be compromised by attaching their name

3) even if we went to registered commenters only, it is virtually impossible to stop pseudonyms, where your first name would be "Who" and your last name would be "Cares".

4) the comments have been particularly vituperative on the political posts, and I think that is a direct reflection of the national political climate.

5) I too share Dennis' and Kenley's concern about the quality of the comments. Kenley's advice is great, and I admit I am not always constructive, and don't always avoid division. I do however put my name on every comment I leave.

So basically, I support Dennis' suggestion that commenters use their real name, and Kenley's offering from Thich Nhat Hanh. I hope other readers take this thread to heart and mind, and the discourse and dialogue elevates as a result.

Are you trying to silence the independent voice of Ojai? You guys are such renegades (sarcasm)... putting up your website, so you can only have your say. But when it comes to people freely expressing themselves, you want to quash their speech by exposing them when their opinions do not mesh with your own. You are full of bull! You are worse than Ojai Valley News blog, because you put them down for doing the same thing that you are now purporting to do on your own website. Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!

You know. I used to think you guys were cool. But, now I see the truth. You are just like the rest of those with the "media powers." Always wanting to censor the freedom of OUR speech.

Shame!

I'm not sure I understand what is being censored or why you have your panties in a bunch. Despite being anonymous, and not particularly friendly, we'll leave your comment up. I think you are proving Dennis' point, actually.

Dennis simply encouraged people to use their real name, and I reinforced the principle that this site accepts anonymous commenters. Civil discourse is not censorship.

The real question you must answer is not...

"why people are anonymous..."

but "why you must put your name on what you say..."

Dear guru, Who Cares, and losing my faith in you guys:

I appreciate your questions and comments (and I did see the smile in guru's name line). I can only respond to what I wrote (though I'm not certain you were responding to my comments). And please know, I don't speak for Tyler or the Ojai Post policies.

In my comments above, it was not my intention to say people must put their name or that we shouldn't allow anonymous posts. In fact, the two people I mentioned may already post anonymously and I appreciate what they can share with the community. However, I am saddened that we have to speak behind anonymity. I think the attacks (my perception) we have experienced just in this conversation illustrates the fear of posting with our true name.

My objective was to encourage civility and to share my practice when posting. It seems that even if we post anonymously, we should at least be kind and civil. Am I incorrect in this idea?

Do the clothes make the woman, or the woman, the clothes?

Names perhaps can display ownership over words. But I think of names in this context more like clothes. They shelter the words. They protect them. And they project them.

Or not. Some with their names have girded themselves as a clown, or a peacock, or a prancing pony. We see their names, and we dismiss what they write. Or we color it with our established impressions. For these, their names detract from their words.

Naked words, unclothed by the identify of the speaker, have nothing to shelter them. And nothing to lend them credence, but the power of the expression itself.

Like their words, anonymous speakers stand naked, their words alone offered for their own merits. They get no respect they don't command on their own. They are easy to ignore.

How different from the named, those who can say anything, or nothing at all, but by the power of their name command attention to their idea.

The blog is a place of discourse. Why dress the discourse with one's name? Why claim ownership over words at all?

The blog is far different from the pasquines of Garcia Marquez's childhood, the anonymous scandal sheets that aired the dirty laundry of a small town, posted overnight on the square. The blog is far from the awful modern pasquine of the Ojai Valley News, that "thumbs up/thumbs down" feature that anonymously airs the pettiest of gripes, the expressions that would not be made were a name attached for sheer embarrassment.

On the blog, the merits of one's comment can be instantly addressed. Discourse is immediate. Accusations can be answered. On the blog, we don't need to distract from the power of our words by girding them with our name. Our words speak for themselves.

And we need not fear the discourse. On the blog, there is neither reason nor sense in hiding for fear of how some might react. But: If you are a victim of such fear, is it not preferable to speak your words by themselves? To allow your words, unowned and free, nameless, to suffer their blows and rally their defenders?

And: If the words are the body of the woman, and her name merely her clothing, answer truthfully: Would you not rather discourse with her naked?

Do you really need to know her name? What does her name add that you wouldn't prefer to do without?

Kenley, I highly doubt that any of these comments were directed to you. To call them 'attacks' is simply ridiculous and arguementative. That is a great example of why many enjoy the option of anoymity. We never know the light in which they will be taken. To call you thin skinned in this matter just does not suffice. Some do not agree with you. Thus, it seems you have distorted and misinterpreted others opinions in this matter to suit a previously held belief. I suggest you reexamine this thread in order to understand where you went into your own imagination. No one is being attacked. These ideas are being discussed and that is all. Each individual has their own screen and they do need to be cleaned once in a while.

Mr Suchman,

Thank you for attempting to raise the integrity and gentleness of the discourse here. However, your comments on anonymity, and your apparent gratuitous attempt to stimulate traffic on your site, belie your misguided effort. Increasing the traffic on your site may support your personal business and egoic interests, (yet another lesson in quantity being inverse to quality) but the rhetoric here is becoming a bit transparent, if not in poor taste. Surely, it is not difficult to understand why participation on your site, on behalf of your so called "editors" and the associated comments, is increasingly more narrow minded, adolescent angst ridden, self absorbed and caustic. Surely we would have turned the "cultural bend", at the Sermon on the Mount, if the brand of "civil discourse", that exists at your site, was ever going to be anything more than statistical sledgehammers of averaging.

Those who tell do not know, those who know do not tell.

Dennis,
Thanks for the post and thanks for opening up this interesting dialogue.

Anonymous,
I appreciate the point of view you've added to the mix. I've often pondered the power/gender issues you raise here. Reminds me of George Elliot, one of the great English novelists.

off to consider the issue more deeply...

Dear Dr. Freud,
Thank you for the comments and suggestion to look more closely at the words. I don't believe that I am trying to 'misinterpret' or 'distort' the words of others in pursuit of some belief (nor would I consider myself 'thin skinned'), but I welcome your comments as a place to continue the convesation.

I readily agree that we each have a lense or perception in which we view the world and I may have hastily jumped behind that lense. My use of the word attacked, in regards to this conversation, was incorrect and I retract my suggestion.

Perhaps I attach to much meaning to persona, to name? In a recent exercise with a group, we were asked to consider our name; to think about whether we liked our name; whether it spoke to who we think we are; what we believe; etc. The response was varied. I really like what 'anonymous' wrote above and yet seem to still have this need to have a name attached to posts. I like to know who I am talking with because it helps me to frame the conversation better. It helps me to understand their world view better, especially if conversations are ongoing across multiple threads. It helps me to interpret the nuances of electronic communication because words on the screen have such significant limits. Ultimately, it helps me to know my neighbors, since I suspect that most of us our neighbors.

In gratitude.

Dear "Marketing shmarketing":

I've referred to The Ojai Post at times as a "community experiment". I am naturally curious about how online communities intersect with their offline counterparts.

I think that allowing anonymous commenters contributes to the growth of the site, but I don't see that as gratuitous - I don't advocate, in general, the kind of sensationalist "journalism" that another local paper (not the OVN) offers. I probably should not have put the traffic comment as point #1, because its not the most important thing to me at all, but is something I consider.

Actually, the biggest spikes in traffic are the result of our coverage of the most important issues to Ojai, starting with the Day Fire. We grow most as a website, when we are of the most value to the community, period.

In terms of the discourse, it has narrowed, and that bothers me. Its not just from the anonymous commenters. I want our Authors to be encouraged to post, and I want our community encouraged to participate. Simple as that.

Technically, there is no way to stop anonymous or at least pseudonymous commenters at this point, without a complete migration to another technology platform, which I can't afford right now. If you, M.S., or any other commenters have ideas on how to best open up the Post for a more congenial and community minded discourse, obviously I am listening.

Cheers,
Tyler

Firstly, thanks Kenley, for that great Thich Nhat Hanh quote and for your thoughtful response. I am seduced (pun only slightly intended) by the idea of “naked words”. I agree that words alone indeed have power and indeed their ability to be heard may sometimes depend upon the source and sometimes a name can get in the way of the message. (Yet, while a line may move me, it does make some difference to me if the words came from Gertrude Stein or Einstein. I admit to shutting off when the byline is David Duke or Rush Limbaugh.) I found the posting by “Anonymous” to be thoughtful and cogent, even amusing… although the metaphor of the woman’s clothing began to fray around the edges after thought.

The purpose of my post was to encourage thoughtful, respectful exchanges. I found “Anonymous” to do just that, despite that anonymity tends to enable a lack of civility in many instances. If writers have good reason to remain nameless, and there may be many, so be it. I guess that we can only be our own judge whether remaining nameless allows us to exercise certain smallness of character that we would otherwise not wish to flaunt.

Finally, I acknowledge that words are not really owned by anyone. Yet, ownership of sequences of words and the ideas behind them are indeed protected by our laws. By “ownership” I only meant to imply a moral responsibility for the truth, the insinuations or the hurtfulness of the words. My appeal was for respect, for each other and for this unique process.

have to agree that the words -- the verse, the prose -- make the best point all of themselves.

and though I VERY much appreciate the nurturing, refining, polishing integrity of acknowledged authorship -- I do also VERY much understand the need of many members of this VERY small community to remain unseen or anonymous in word and mind.

a valley family we are, yet also sickly and dysfunctional in many ways ... and many of those ways lead to retaliation or abuse.

hence again, how obvious, the need to speak the gentle truth, in the context of connectedness and affirmation ...

of the beauty of our collective evolution.

I am starting to see a lot of censorship from missing entries on former posts.

This is reminiscent of OVN, and the way you all have been vehemently opposed to them removing your opinions. I mean nothing in spite by my comments, here... I just want the dissenting opinions to be heard, when I see that they have valid, supported, opposing opinions.

No more smoke and mirrors to push one-sided agendas please.

Well said MT.

7:23 - that's a pretty serious allegation - got proof?

I think anonymous 7:23 is referring to the missing chainchainchain article. Its dialogue seemingly led to the writing of this article. The chainchainchain link under "chain stores" (upper right) does not contain that article and any of the commentary after August 1.

Sorry all, that was purely a clerical error. The resource pages are manually compiled, and I accidently used a URL from a previous entry. You can check it out and link to chainchainchain... which should have the complete discussion. Anon, thanks for the catch.

Anonymous, I give each author the ability to manage their own posts, which includes comments. I discourage the deletion of any comments except spam or hate speech. I much prefer that authors address the commenters who might have different ideas than them.

I just want to say how much I appreciate this Guest Editorial by Dennis Leary and everyone's comments, both pro and con. The way I see it, one of the problems with anonymous posts is similar to the anonymous "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" feature in the Ojai Valley News. Over the years many readers have requested that writer's names be included, especially after a flury of mean-spirited uaccusations. Signing ones real name is similar to not hiding behind a cover. Revealing ones identity tends to make most (but not all) people more responsible for what they say. It's the same reason that we usually don't wear a mask. Think about it. If we always went out in the world wearing a disguise we might behave very differently. That maybe fun and liberating for Mardi Gras, Halloween, and other celebrations, but, on a daily basis, is that a good thing?

for clarity, Suza: the guest editorial was written by new Ojai Post author Dennis RICE, not frequent commenter Dennis Leary.

Thank you Evan. I was not confusing the two different Dennises when I accidentally typed in the wrong last name. It's a strange coincidence, but for many years Dennis Rice was known as Dennis Rice-Leary. (Leary being the last name of Dennis Rice's former wife.) I hope he will not mind my mentioning this. (When Dennis Leary first began writing Letters to the Editor in the OVN's, I briefly wondered if they were written by Dennis Rice-Leary, now knon as Dennis Rice.)

how strange! i'm sure there's a term for that particular type of small-world coincidence (or non-coincidence), but i dont know what it is.

incidentally, Dennis Rice, welcome! i'm refreshed by your intellect and perspectives already.

"Revealing ones identity tends to make most (but not all) people more responsible for what they say."

Really?

I can say this with confidence: Bush and Cheney, and indeed, dictatorial regimes everywhere, would agree with Suza. They are all for creating the impression that they always know what you are saying, whenever you say it.

There is a reason dictators spend so much time and treasure making sure they know who is saying what: it is an extraordinarily powerful tool for repressing dissent, and for keeping people from speaking out in the first place.

When you attach your name, it is a fact that you are more likely to pull back on the thrust of your comments. To paraphrase that quote from Thich Nhat Hanh above, when you attach your name, you are more likely to refrain from saying certain things that may offend or "cause division", or that you "do not know to be certain", or that "criticise or condemn things of which [you are] not sure."

But there is nothing good about that. If you adhere to those precepts, it is virtually certain that you will never "speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten [your] safety."

(Perhaps that quote itself, and the approval it gets from thoughtful people on this thread, is an argument for a point made by anonymous August 7 9:13; namely, that attaching one's name can gird an otherwise weak, faulty idea with authority it could not command on its own. I wonder: If that Thich Nhat Hanh quote had been posted anonymously, without attribution, would our thoughtful commenters still have commended it? Or would they see it as internally inconsistent, setting up a standard for silence over dialog, for passivity over communication and the development of ideas, and ultimately for acceptance of and subjugation to the status quo?

I for one have had quite enough of those who speak only of news they are certain of; the religious right is full of them. What they say does not make for dialog, and does not lead to enlightenment. In my experience, the most interesting and enlightening conversations occur with those whose minds are open, who freely speak of things of which they are not certain, who speak without reservation on matters of importance even if their words might cause division, who do not hesitate to speak critically of things of which they are not sure, in the hopes that the process of conversation will lead them to new understanding, and a better-tested, more far-reaching "certainty".

Fess up: How many of those who approved that quote did so just because Thich Nhat Hanh said it, without critically evaluating it on its own merits?)

Anonymous -

Very interesting reply, but one thing that perhaps you can expand on would be that the playing field isn't level when you have "named" and anonymous or pseudonymous posters participating in the same forum or thread.

Regarding the quote, I would say that for me it was given more weight simply because it was Kenley posting, whose voice I find to be very consistent and admirable.

Dear 5:13 Anonymous:

With complete honesty and sincerity, I love your comments. Thank you. Much for me to consider and look at more closely. When I typed the quote above, I almost didn't include Thich Nhat Hanh as the source, but I felt it would be misleading.

I'd like to step outside my comfort zone a little here and share a couple more quotes from the same document. And to be completely clear, they are precepts (Mindfulness Trainings) that I have received in an ordination cermony in a religious Order. These are aspirations and I would not claim to adhere perfectly to the vows.

The First Mindfulness Training: Openness
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, I am determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help me learn to look deeply and to develop my understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill or die for.

The Third Mindfulness Training: Freedom of Thought
Aware of the suffering brought about when I impose my views on others, I am committed not to force others, even my children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda or indoctrination – to adopt my views. I will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide. I will, however, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness through compassionate dialogue.

For the record, the original posting above was The Ninth Mindfulness Training: Truthful and Loving Speech. Naturally, these vows are not for everyone but they speak to me as a good direction in which to work.

Re the reference that Bush, Cheney and dictators everywhere would agree with the call for attaching a name to everyone's expression: Having just read the latest "anonymous senior White House source" quoted in the New York Times spreading the case for an attack on Iran, I think Bush and Cheney make good examples for both sides of the issue here. We sure could use a little less anonymity from them!

Tyler, why isn't the playing field level when there are named and anonymous posters on the same thread?

This is not the OVN "Thumbs Up/Down", or for that matter a traditional newspaper, TV medium, etc.., in which a comment can be made to an audience and never answered before that same audience again. In that traditional print setting, absolutely there is strong reason to be concerned about anonymous comments, precisely because the words get out and there is no way to counter them. In that setting, it makes sense to be sure that commenters own their words, and can be held accountable later - because the damage cannot be cured on the spot.

Not so on the blog. Everyone is equal, whether anonymous or named. Anything said can be answered before the exact same audience. That is the power of the medium, and something that makes it so powerful, and potentially subversive. (Although I note one other difference between the named and anonymous: Named posters open up a possibility for malefactors to turn a thread to ad hominem and personal attacks, something that has distracted many a thread.)

"Neurosis begins with the avoidance of necessary suffering."

Anonymity is the refuge for all literary and journalistic rascality. It is a practice which must be completely stopped. Every article, even in a newspaper, should be accompanied by the name of its author; and the editor should be made strictly responsible for the accuracy of the signature. The freedom of the press should be thus far restricted; so that when a man publicly proclaims through the far-sounding trumpet of the newspaper, he should be answerable for it, at any rate with his honor, if he has any; and if he has none, let his name neutralize the effect of his words. And since even the most insignificant person is known in his own circle, the result of such a measure would be to put an end to two-thirds of the newspaper lies, and to restrain the audacity of many a poisonous tongue.

Aah for the world of Schopenhaur, a world where reputations mattered, where the history of one's misdeeds could not be so easily erased by moving to the next town, the next company, the next country; by controlling the one newspaper, the one radio station, the one printing press.

Alas that is not the world we live in. One's name can be used against, if the object person has honor, by those who don't; the only loser being the one who improvidently offered to sacrifice his good name and works toward the possibility of something greater. After all, once offered on a blog, one's name today will never disapppear anywhere in the world; and neither will the attacks against it.

But one's good name, on the blog, truly does not add much of value, except perhaps the convenience of referring to "A. Schopenhaur" instead of "Anonymous 9-11 5:03".