Quoting Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant in January 2007 “Blogging does not always show its best face, but when it does, I think it closely resembles the vision Thomas Jefferson had of America – an informed and spirited people who would care for one another and act decisively to safeguard their own liberties. The best way to make this happen (safeguard our liberties), Jefferson said, would be to ‘illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they (the people) may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes’. ”

Bowman said at the Cafe in March 2007 “We are experiencing a new medium for sharing information, expressing our opinions and doing it in a way we are comfortable with. Of course like all change there are people who will be against it. We hear that nobody should be anonymous, people should have the ‘guts’ to express their opinions at public meetings, etc. However that is the past and this is the emerging reality that everyone will be forced to deal with.

It’s a two edged sword. On the one hand it is much easier to publish and find data on a wide variety of subjects. I can remember when I was younger having to do all my research in a library and hoping the library was a good one. Today’s students have access to so much more information. On the other hand a lot of false information gets posted onto the web. So each individual has a greater access to information but along with that comes a greater need to each individual to be able to evaluate and verify if that information is accurate.

So here we are arguing about the current state of politics in Woodstock. Make no mistake, the fact that we are arguing is a good thing. If everyone who came here regurgitated the same information and views I’d be very leary of that information’s partisaness. People that come here in support of the CPS is a good thing, people that come here in support of the BOE are equally good. Hopefully as a result of that running dialog the majority of site visitors can form an opinion on the best information available with all sides presenting their case.

The word and how we access and convey information is changing and I think that is a good thing.”

John said at the Cafe in January 2007 “There are many who have contributed to the Cafe 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 Cafe, 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.”

“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 explicit discourse from both sides of the issue in the written word and written conversation.”

“Our local political environment is governed to some degree by a small group of people who can devote 24/7 to pursuing their own political agendas while the vast majority of Town residents can only devote a small block of time to these issues. This is because this majority is busy supporting themselves, their families, and pursuing professional careers. The Cafe offers an efficient platform for expressing opinions in all of areas (relevant to the town of Woodstock). If the writers who contribute thoughts and ideas to the Cafe do so in an articulate and intelligent way, then this is all that is needed regardless of the opinion. The Cafe feels this may be an effective way of influencing other residents and ultimately improving the fate of the Town.”

These statements of Cafe philosophy serve as a form of “Thanks” to Bill Andrzeicik for his Letter to the Editor supporting the Cafe in this week’s Villager (January 4th, 2008).