Simona on June 9, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Thanks for taking the time to reply. The matter seems to be resolved at this point. Mr. Whelan apologized and that is far more than I’d expect today.

The rapprochement between Ed Whelan and Publius seems to have sparked even more commentary than the rift, so I couldn’t miss out on a chance to get in on the Memeorandum linkfest. There’s a decent round-up of reaction at The Moderate Voice,…

As a professor at a public university he had no real business engaging in highly partisan blogging, and he knew it, which is why he used a pseudonym and got so upset when he was outed.
Simona on June 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Hi, Simona. Are there formal or informal rules about this? I’d rather not have these guys pretending to be neutral anyhow, but from what I’ve read, it’s pretty obvious in their classes.

Or maybe he was able to be professional in his classes and keep his personal politics out. (?)

The peevish outburst by Mr. Whelan reflects more on him than it does Publius.

Yeah, I think so.

So I would expect anonymity for me, and for the filthiest troll as well.
I don’t like it when someone changes the rules of the game ad hoc. I don’t like it when credit card companies keep changing their terms and conditions. I don’t like it when presidents and congress make ex post facto decisions about bonuses for executives. To me, these are all a similar type of sin.
connertown on June 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Yes. It’s easy enough to lock out trolls. Most disturbing is the fact that an NR blogger would do this to a comparative unknown, when the man was writing on his own blog. It’s like a state politician siccing bureaucrats on a nobody critic. The peevish outburst by Mr. Whelan reflects more on him than it does Publius.

I engaged in discussions on a wide range of topics, and mostly as “debate” with a George Pyle who is now, last I knew, editor of a Salina, KS, newspaper.

There was no anonymity on either part.

The tone of many letters was strong and forceful. One of my pastors suggested I not be so harsh. Another of my pastors called it “prophetic confrontaion. I don’t know about that, however.

One day he called me a liar by name in one of his editorials. (I hadn’t lied.) I guess I could have sued. But I laughed instead.

My feeling is, if you can’t stand the heat … ; a quote from Harry S, another plain speaker.

I swear my real name is Potfry.

Potfry on June 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM

I don’t care what you call me–as long as you don’t call me late for supper. (Don Zimmer in response to how felt about being called “Popeye”. c.1960)

You completely ignore the dark side to anonymous blogging- the motives and agenda of the bloggers. I’m not so much talking about this little food-fight though slander, I think, is one reason why a blogger might rightfully be outed.”

Well, unless the site/blog has a clear written policy as to outting, you had best leave “retaliation” against the nasty things said by the anonymous user to either responsive postings . . . or the courts.

Either there is an objective standard, or there isn’t.

The only possible objective standard is this:

“This is my web site/blog. . . Here are my rules . . . And if you break my rules, I can/may/will “out” you.”

In Ed Whelen’s instance: If the outing is not under the above standard (i.e., it’s my ballfield, and you play by my arbitrary rules) then there is no standard.

One other thing: If a web site/blog permits requires user registration – and allows pseudonymous screen names – but requires disclosure of identifying information, like the users real name – You had better be very careful about outting the real identity of the user which you permitted to post anonymously. In other words: You had better have a crystal clear policy that a user’s real identity may be revealed at any time by the site/blog owner, for no reason whatsoever.

highhopes

I agree that my viewpoint is simplistic, as I believe the issue is a simple one.

The expectation on this blog and most blogs is that we are anonymous. That expectation is what sets up the “right” to privacy.

I don’t know how to do it, but I believe there should be a way to require new members to waive their “right” to anonymity as they register. But I don’t recall that being required here. So I would expect anonymity for me, and for the filthiest troll as well.

Another simplistic observation – I don’t like it when someone changes the rules of the game ad hoc. I don’t like it when credit card companies keep changing their terms and conditions. I don’t like it when presidents and congress make ex post facto decisions about bonuses for executives. To me, these are all a similar type of sin.

But then agian, I’m a simple man.

AnninCA on June 8, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Ann are you a LGFer? Sorry… there are quite a few on this blog that have been banned over there, due to really petty things.

As I said, Charles made his bed. He can do what he wants. I don’t happen to care what he does as he shows nothing other then a weird need to be in control and ban off the cuff.