The Café will continue to publish unedited articles and comments by contributors (for the most part). However, the author of “Opinion 1� in the article entitled “Selfish Couple…� has been persuaded by Jim Kaeding’s comments regarding anonymous personal characterizations and that the more personal characterizations in “Opinion 1� were inappropriate. Therefore, the author has requested that Admin delete the second paragraph of Opinion 1 and the author extends an apology to Craig and Susan Powers. The Café feels that personal characterizations may be appropriate if they stem directly from information in the primary source of the statement which, in this case, was the article in the Villager that quoted statements by the Powers and Mr. Shultz.
“It is up to the visitor to evaluate whether they are reading an honest account�
Why is anonymity offered at this site? Perhaps one minor answer is that we are not a national blog although occasionally we have visitors from other states and countries. The commentary at this site is focused exclusively on Woodstock CT in areas that are important to all who live in this small town such as:
· The education system which is 74% of the Town budget,
· Town management,
· Town politics,
· State politics as it relates to the Town,
· Neighboring town issues as they relate to Woodstock,
· Local environmental issues,
· Local cultural issues,
· Local social issues,
· Local economic issues, and
· Local lifestyle issues, etc.
It is the perception of many who have spoken here and in the Villager (some anonymously) that for many years our Town has been mis-managed and exploited by sub-par leadership with special agendas or short-sighted and even incompetent leaders that simply have not operated in the best interests of the community. When I moved to Woodstock, the sore point of the period in Town was disbelief by some in the failure of the Town leaders to purchase the Data General Property that could have been converted to a high school or rented to businesses to generate income for Woodstock. This property was subsequently ‘stolen’ by Hyde School, a nonprofit that pays no taxes. I was then exposed to the charming and personable Selectmanship of Mr. Ed Newman and then the rebellion of Town citizenry over the way in which the school system was run. Next we had the angry campaign of Ernest Wetzel that educated me with a lot of half-truths and mis-information. The chaos and complaints over Town management continued under the leadership of Republican Delpha Very, a disciple of Mr. Newman. Ms. Very’s tenure as First Selectman was abruptly followed by unanimous defeat of the Republicans by ‘new’ Democrats last fall. Through all of this my Woodstock associates and I felt that we lived in complete political darkness – even those of us who joined either the Republican or Democratic Town Committees and attended Town meetings. Nevertheless, we have cared about the Town and want to make Woodstock our home for the rest of our lives. This is perhaps the answer to the question initially posed.
Maybe this lack of transparency and the political chaos is the norm for most rural towns in Eastern Connecticut. I can say from experience that this is not characteristic of Towns of more affluent areas. Some of us thought that having some peaceful dialogue about the local issues like those listed above might help to shed light on the issues that perplexed us so that we could contribute more effectively to the Town. Living in the dark in Woodstock has been the norm for a long time because there is no easy way to get the facts even today with the presence of the Villager. This is the way some leadership in this Town would like to keep it.
There are many who have contributed to the Café to share information with the rest of us, and to enlighten us. The collective intelligence of all of us is well documented in the archives, warts and all. I can say for myself that, as a contributor of some of the articles at the Café, I have learned a lot about the Town and how it operates. The ability to speak freely in this forum has liberated us from the political darkness of Woodstock. Our learning about the goings on in Woodstock has come from writing the articles, reading the articles of others, and reading the commentary of other contributors. Many times I have been dutifully corrected and I have always appreciated knowing when I have misstated the facts. This awakening would not have been possible without anonymity. This is because it is the argument stated explicitly in words, not the credibility of the author that is being debated.
Anonymous debate and dissent has a long and honorable history. One outstanding example is the pseudonymous authorship of the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers serve as a primary source of interpretation of the constitution. Who were the anonymous in this discourse? These 85 articles were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, under the pseudonym “Publius,” in honor of a noted Roman consul. Without this public discourse on the controversial content of the US Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer and the efficacy of the Constitution many have been diminished.
As it is in Woodstock, clearly readers are squeamish about leaving comments because only a low percentage of visitors post statements. Many of us, myself included, blog pseudonymously because we are simpering cowards. And, bullies always want it their way. Most people naturally feel awkward about expressing themselves in public. This is why we have chosen to make this an anonymous or pseudonymous site – that is, to help people present their feelings and ideas without fear of retribution. This is also why we ALWAYS remove the email addresses of visitors who post comments. The Café prefers that contributors use a pseudonym and that they submit their comment with a false email like “aka@hotmail.com” (I hope that there is no one out there with that address because they are probably getting a lot of hate mail). I would also answer those who demand that we use our true names with the following – How do we verify that the name given by the author is truly HIM or HER. I had this strange concern when I read Robert Skelley’s post at the Café yesterday. It would certainly be twisted if the opposing lawyer represented herself as Robert Skelley and blew his case for him. And, how many Becki’s are there in Woodstock…I hope only one.
It is up to the visitor to evaluate whether they are reading an honest account. This is true whether the contributor reveals his/her name or not. It’s simply NOT TRUE that anonymity equates to dishonesty. I think that readers can tell who is off the wall by the way in which the writers express themselves. This is the great advantage of having discourse from both sides of the issue in explicit words and conversation. If you say something stupid you should get slammed…but then you can change your name and start a whole new more intelligent persona and then keep trying until you find your true deserving identity. One contributor used his name and self-esteem at the Café to stir up interest in his referendum in Woodstock to repeal Prop 46. He then spoke openly in favor of its repeal in the Villager. It turned out that this was his ploy to stir up anti-repeal sentiment. Thus, he manipulated the entire Town at its own expense to carry out his strategy. This lesson was worth learning.
Here is another reason why we are anonymous. A few years ago there was a rift in the local Republican Party in an attempt by some to change the constitution of leadership in this long ruling party. Those that tried to take over the leadership of the party ended up with physical threats to their well-being…and the offenders got what they wanted out of this bad situation. The new Republicans retreated to their personal livelihoods and removed themselves from Woodstock politics. I can read their minds even now… “Life is too sweet and I am too committed to my family and profession to sink this low and deal with this harassment.â€? More recently on Election Day last November in Woodstock some citizens experienced harassment at the polling place by one of the candidates. This candidate has contributed articles and comments under his own name at the Café. Does his use of his own name make him more credible? Me thinks not! So as one of our valued contributors suggests, “Namelessâ€? equates with “Blamelessâ€?. Read the rest of this entry »