barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on 
Like Dino, I’ve been following this Klocko story with a sort of morbid curiosity; it’s really a slow-motion trainwreck of sorts. Before I go any further, let’s review the players:
- Dean Zuleger: Weston Administrator. Named Wausau Daily Herald’s “Person of the Year”.
- Paul Klocko: commenter “juanmoore” on the WDH forums. Posts inflammatory comments about Zuleger in response to the article.
- Wausau Daily Herald: releases Klocko’s email address at Zuleger’s request.
This is clearly a situation where a series of bad decisions led us to where we currently are, but somehow everyone seems to be pointing the finger at Zuleger when the worst offender here from a journalistic standpoint is the Daily Herald.
I Hate the Daily Herald
I find it amazing that I can frequent forums with hundreds of thousands of users that still remain coherent and fully functional, because if the user base was scaled up proportionally from the forums on WDH, the servers would be on fire and simply trying to log in would cause your computer to explode.
Unfortunately, these are the same people who comment on the articles, resulting in a discussion where commenters who have any rationality left are far outnumbered by people whose entire vernacular consists of insults, bigotry and misinformation.
I find this to be pretty amazing; while I have met many locals in my ten years here, I’ve yet to meet someone in real life who behaves in a way indicative of a typical WDH commenter.
The reason for this is glaringly obvious. One of the beautiful pitfalls of the internet is that it allows anyone to have a voice, and to do so without necessarily attaching that voice to a real person. This is generally pretty harmless, for in larger, global communities, people who prefer only to cause trouble (“trolls”) are pretty quickly called out by the people with a genuine interest in being there (a self-policing of sorts) or in more dire cases, are banned completely.
While this seems to happen occasionally on WDH, it doesn’t seem to occur with a frequency that would send a message to other trolling users, and trolling is exactly what Klocko was doing.
I Love the Daily Herald
There are a few steps the various involved could have taken that would’ve drastically altered this whole situation. A good moderator would have shut Klocko down almost immediately, for while he is well within his rights to be dissatisfied with Zuleger’s award and to express that dissatisfaction on a public forum, his contributions were of little to no value and only intended to hurt others. While he may have been doing his part to further prove Godwin’s Law, it’s pretty hard to argue that “Little Hitler” counts as any sort of useful commentary.
Klocko, if he were going to insist on logging on to a public site and being very vocal about the people he dislikes, could’ve have gone a step further to protect his anonymity, like registering an anonymous email address to use for that account. From what I understand, that’s the only bit of information WDH was able to provide to Zuleger, so it either used Klocko’s name or was easily associated to him after a quick visit to Google. Or (imagine this) not act like a complete lunatic in the first place.
And honestly, Zuleger could’ve let this whole thing roll off his back, but I can’t fault him too much. If put in a similar situation I would probably do the same thing. Klocko has made it very apparent that he has deep-seated issues with Zuleger but at the same time refuses to act like grownup and actually try to resolve them.
So while professionally I’m obligated to chastise the Daily Herald for violating the trust of one (or more) of their users, I find that on a personal level I’m absolutely loving that they threw Klocko to the wolves. It needed to happen, and I wouldn’t mind at all if it happened more frequently to those who blatantly abuse their anonymity.
” It needed to happen, and I wouldn’t mind at all if it happened more frequently to those who blatantly abuse their anonymity. ”
That comment bothers me deeply. Your definition of abuse of anonymity differs from mine and others. Who gets to make that call to “out” others? You? Me? Dean Z?
I’ve said this dozens of times, had this happened in China, it is very likely that Klocko would be in prison or dead for his opinions.
What about the anonymous posters during the Iran election issues? I’m sure Iran found them to be “abusing” their anonymity. Should they be outed by the American sites they were using to post their views on those elections and forced to deal with what they said?
You think it’s OK to “out” people that don’t agree with the way you feel they should be speaking. I feel it’s never OK to do that because who knows how that information will be used in the future or when it will be used to corral everyone who dissents.
Dean seems to have a thin skin for politics. Had he ignored this guy and his attacking rant, he would have shown true leadership. Instead he spent tax money and his time paid to work for the village and the police’s time and the village attorney’s time to work for him and his personal vendetta against a guy calling him fat. Not village business, his little personal issue with his self image.
Can you imagine Obama searching down and intimidating every single opposer of his looks, views and decisions? the public wouldn’t have it. So why was it OK for Dean to hunt this guy down and attempt to scare him into silence by letting him know he knew who he was?
I found it to be a glaring abuse of his power. And don’t even get me started on WDH in all this. They should be ashamed of themselves for just rolling over to a politician and his blank threats.
I want to point something out here. Do you see what you typed above? That is a constructive and useful comment. It was chock full of examples that you used to state your case in a compelling way. I notice that even though you certainly could have, you opted against calling me names, despite the fact that our opinions on this matter differ.
In essence, it’s the exact opposite of what Klocko has done. So in short, if the commenters/posters discussing Iran or Obama or gay marriage/unions (another “fun” topic on WDH) can do so in a way that you’ve done here (regardless of stance), I can do nothing but encourage it.
If, on the other hand, they feel the need to behave as Klocko did, then no, I can’t make myself feel sorry for them if this sort of thing happens, because I’m sick of dealing (or trying to deal with) people who behave that way instead of like human beings.
Hunt down? Come on. He asked Mark Baldwin a question, and Baldwin answered it.
Hunt down is a bit much DBC.
I would call having the police, city attorney and Dean researching all this guy’s dealings with the Village as “hunting down”. A bit sensational of a word maybe, but I’m sure you got the idea. It was not just the question he posed to get Paul’s email, it was the very specific researching, involkving the police, village attorney, etc, over being called “fat”.
DBC, come on now…you know as it has been documented in several places that it was far more than being called fat.
“thedbc” is absolutely right. Andy and Dino fail to address even one of his important points.
Whose right is it to determine what constitutes “abuse” of anonymity? In reference to Andy’s comment, who determines when something is “constructive?” It’s the same arbitrary standard, which – when applied in this case – resulted in both a newspaper and local official acting inappropriately.
Andy, your lack of consideration for the consequences of political speech – even that which is as crude-minded as Klocko’s – is striking and extremely troubling.
In this case, it’s WDH’s right to decide that somebody was abusing anonymity. I’m not saying they made that decision, but the site is theirs to do with as they please. By that standard, they get to decide whether a comment is constructive or not.
Furthermore, I’m not going to argue that Zuleger or WDH didn’t act inappropriately, but your language (“crude-minded”) suggests that you might think Klocko’s behavior was inappropriate as well.
I’m sorry that you find my lack of consideration troubling. I just have a low tolerance for stupidity.
I think it is fine that you want to elevate this to some absurd level for the purposes of instruction. But, from what I understand happened…one guy called another guy on a phone and asked a question.
How is that different that my calling Andy on a phone and asking to borrow his house for a month?
The onus of this falls onto the WDH staff, and from that Gannett. It is interesting for the sake of discussion to wonder what happened there.
But, I think the question is truly what price anonymity? Like Andy said, he is a part of large forums, and they remain civil, topic driven places. The WDH posters seem to lose their minds from time to time.
And Klockos speech was not political. It was personal. That might just be someones point. Calling someone fat, or referencing his family, is not a policy or political discussion. It simply is not.
No more than Rush Limbaugh today saying that PRESIDENT Obama needs to take off his dress.
It appears that the newspaper in this case made a decision that what Klocko said was offensive enough that it was willing to release the information. Since this episode, they have clarified their policy. Did they make a mistake, it appears they did.
Mark Baldwin and Mike Beck have apologized directly to Klocko.
Klocko never went and met with Zuleger to resolve whatever political issues he had with him, so clearly the attacks (as he said) were of a personal nature.
What is left?
I’m not trying to “instruct” anybody, Dino. And if you think it’s absurd, then TheDBC, Matthew, Barry and everyone else who’s made the same arguments I have.
Dean Zuleger and Mark Baldwin combined to act inappropriately. The fact that they did so over a phone call means nothing; a whole lot worse has been conducted by two private individuals over the phone.
By the way, you’re absolutely wrong – both historically and legally – to say that Klocko’s mockery does not constitute political speech. The courts have ruled over and over again that satire is an acceptable form of protected speech, and history shows us time and time again that personal insult has been a well-worn political tactic. To say that Klocko’s speech was tasteless is true; to say it isn’t political is completely wrong.
The issue of anonymity and appropriateness is a separate one. The important thing, to me, is that neither you nor Andy seem willing to criticze Dean Zuleger for doing anything. Why not? Are you afraid that he’ll treat you in the same manner he treated Klocko?
Andy,
I don’t like what Klocko said. But I dislike far more the idea that he should be targeted by Dean Zuleger and Mark Baldwin because of it. That’s the issue: that a city official and the editor of a newspaper would behave in this manner.
Remember, it isn’t just that the WDH released the name of a poster. It’s that they did so because a local official *asked* for it. They didn’t make it public, they didn’t require that Zuleger get a court order, and they now have changed their policy to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
Charles raises relevant and pertinent points. It is disconcerting when anyone decides what kind of speech is “constructive”. I’m old enough top remember the criticsms raised about the Freedom Riders and the lunch counter sit in participants. They were also accused of behavior that wasn’t polite or constructive. So the use of constructive as a criterion for publishing bothers me. But remember, the criterion of ‘constructive’ (if that’s what it was) or whatever criteria was used did not result in the item not being posted. It resulted in the poster being outed by the WDH. There is nothing that prevented Zuleger, in this case, from announcing over the media who the poster was. And the WDH would have been an accomplice in that act. The site belongs to the WDH, as Andy points out, and it can do what it chooses. But it says in its policies that inappropriate postings will not be allowed. It does not say that inappropriate postings will be allowed but we will assist in making the name of the poster public. And, Dino, the circumstance transcends “one guy calling another guy and asking a question”. The one guy is an elected official who should be used to criticism, and if bothered by it should know better than to engage it what at least appears to be a ‘get even’ mission. And the “other guy” represents the local media which should at least maintain the appearance of an adverserial relationship with the people in power. Both should have known better. Klocko’s speech, because it was aimed at a politician, is certainly political.. And, if the WDH thought it was not acceptable they could have, one, not posted it, or two, if it reached that level, referred it to the police of district attorney for action. The most unacceptable action to follow is to give the target of the posting, Zuleger, the name of the poster. There is no justification for that.
While this isn’t a direct response to anyone in particular, I can’t help but to continue to divide this saga into two separate issues.
The first is obviously WDH’s release of Klocko’s information to Zuleger, or arguably that Zuleger requested it in the first place. Regardless, please realize that I do see that as a serious breach of trust on behalf of all of WDH’s users. This is such an amazingly ridiculous gaff on their part that I can’t even fathom the reasoning that went into the decision.
The second issue, while arguably much less severe, is also much more widespread. It’s the fact that a adult can visit WDH and behave like a grade-schooler while hiding behind a pseudonym, which is ironic considering that most forums (WDH included) don’t (knowingly) allow children under the age of 13 to participate.
It’s when these two issues combine that I have a very hard time feeling bad for Klocko specifically. Releasing private information is obviously not a viable solution. But with better moderation, this never would’ve been an issue in the first place.
Dean Zuleger is not elected.
I am amazed at the continuing attempts by Andy and Dino to deny that Zuleger has any culpability in this. Zuleger may not be elected, but he is appointed, and he has no greater right to expect the local media to indulge his every vindictive whim. (And don’t tell me this whole thing wasn’t vindictive on Zuleger’s part…) Ironically, the only person who clearly acted entirely within his legal and ethical responsibilities in this was Paul Klocko, regardless of how tasteless his remarks may have been. Klocko also had the least power in this situation, with the fewest resources at his disposal. And yet, Klocko is clearly the individual who Andy and Dino continue to paint as the worst offender in this situation. That is completely backwards.
And what about that “Freedom Rider” example that Matthew brings up? Yet another apt analogy that Andy and Dino completely ignore…
I didn’t say that what Zuleger did was right. I said I can understand his reasons for doing what he did. No, that doesn’t make it better, but there’s nothing more I have to offer on that subject.
What I can’t figure out is how there’s any similarity between Klocko and the Freedom Riders. I suppose they both riled people up, but what is Klocko’s cause, exactly? To say that he made those comments in the interest of some sort of “greater good” is giving him way too much credit.
He made those comments because he felt like acting like a vindictive jerk. Then Zuleger and Baldwin acted like vindictive jerks in response to that. Now I’m acting like a vindictive jerk, I guess, because I’m calling Klocko out on his poor behavior.
To compare the Freedom Riders to Paul Klocko…well yeah, that seems like…well…um…yeah.
A man who admitted he made personal attacks out of misguided anger…he copped to it. He said so.
To compare that with the freedom riders, not seeing how that would work. But, maybe, I am simply missing it.
How should I compare people who put their lives on the line for cause of civil rights. How should I compare that to a man who made comments about someones weight, his family, and called him Little Hitler.
Oh, come on. Nobody’s comparing the cause of the Freedom Riders to that of Klocko. As Matthew clearly stated, the analogy is based on the fact that, like you two have done, the Freedom Riders were accused of not adding anything “constructive,” which was then used as a reason to arrest them and not take them seriously. In that sense, the analogy is absolutely correct.
You two clearly have a reason to support Dean Zuleger, and both of you – particularly Dino – are willing to go quite far to suggest that Zuleger somehow deserves less blame for this than Klocko, despite the evidence that he used his office and his influence to launch an unsanctioned investigation into a private citizen, with the willing participation of a supposedly independent newspaper.
If you want to line up behind Dean Zuleger, that’s fine, but it’s very disappointing. It reflects an obsequiance to leadership that seems very much at odds with the mission of a truly democratic media. But that’s your choice.
I feel I need to clarify.
I don’t know Zuleger. I’ve never met him, I couldn’t pick him out of a crowd, and I didn’t even know who he was before this incident. As a resident of Wausau proper, I don’t know what benefits I reap by supporting him.
But because I’ve chosen to focus on Klocko’s initial actions and not Zuleger’s reactions, it means I’m siding with Zuleger?
What I do know is that I’m sick of going to WDH and seeing people like Klocko destroying otherwise interesting discussions. That is my main issue. That is an action that affects me, as someone who also might enjoy participating in those discussions if such an environment didn’t persist.
Let me make an analogy: it’s (generally) wrong to punch people. Even so, there is probably at least one person in youre life you really wish you could punch. But if that person gets punched, even though it’s wrong on the part of the person doing the punching, it’s feels good to see happen. Schadenfreude, and all that.
Wow. Great Googily moogily professor.
So, you just equated Paul Klocko offering nothing but personal attacks, to the Freedom Riders offering nothing. Did the Freedom Riders call people fat, make comments about wives and children?
No, they did not. They tried to, well you know, work for civil rights.
I am sorry Charles, but is that intentionally inflammatory…he used the power of his office to do what?
He asked a police officer in the city in to assess a threat he felt when someone made public comments about himself, his wife, his son and his personal life.
Once, I was concerned that a car was inappropriately parked in front of my mothers house. The same police, in the same city, did an investigation. They investigated, like they are paid to.
All investigations are performed on private citizens. I mean, are you using this sort of language on purpose?
Does he not have those same rights to seek out police protection?
And to assume that Andy or I am lining up behind Zuleger is a bit of well a stretch. I apologize for disppointing you in this regard, but I think the WDH and Klocko are far more at fault. To imply we are beholden, or something to Dean is simply wrong.
The WDH gave up anonymity. Clearly wrong.
Klocko has gone out of its way to NOT focus on the WDH, instead focusing on the Zuleger issue. When in fact Klocko is upset about his anonymity, but instead of creating Freedom of Information Act requests for the WDH, he has focused on Zuleger.
I find Klockos action to be absurd.
I find Zulegers action to be absolutely misguided. Apparently I have not said that to your satisfaction, but I do find his actions least inappropriate. Primarily because I am not interested in seeking out hyperbole of things like comparing Klocko to Freedom Riders.
The act of calling someone fat online and insulting his children and wife…well that is abusrd.
For a newspaper to give up the identity of that person, well that is absurd.
For the person called fat to then write a letter to the attacker, well that is absurd.
Then, for the attacker to give interviews about his loss of anonymity, well that is absurd.
For the attacker to make Freedom of Information act requests AFTER everyone involved has gone on the record as to what they have done, well that is absurd.
Remember, this is the second Freedom of Information request, ON THE SAME TOPIC. The first request was complied with. So, it is absurd that one expects to find new items.
It is absurd that if someone gave up your anonymity, and you feel slighted by that, you would not focus your efforts on the person that violated your anonymity. But instead focusing your continued pursuit of the person you called fat and LIttle Hitler.
It is all absurd.
This is a serious issue. The WDH did a serious thing, made a serious mistake. Zuleger did a serious thing. To elevate Klocko, even though he is the one seeking to elevate himself (it appears to me) to some status of FREEDOM RIDER.
Its all absurd.
You cannot call someone fat, little hitler, and somehow keep the high ground.
Dino,
The “Freedom Rider” analogy has been clearly stated, and you clearly haven’t understood it. Whatever.
I’m sorry, Dino, but I can’t help but wonder if you’ve read anything I’ve written, since you don’t seem to understand the point that I – and others – have been making about Zuleger. He didn’t just ask the police to investigate the comments being made against him by “juanmoore.” No, Zuleger asked Mark Baldwin to provide him with the IP addresses of EVERYONE who commented on the WDH story. In other words, Zuleger wanted information on everyone who had something negative to say about him, and – thanks to Mark Baldwin’s willingness to please him, despite Zuleger’s lack of court order – Baldwin revealed Klocko’s identity.
Dean Zuleger then used his office to launch a personal investigation into Paul Klocko’s affairs. Zuleger *admitted* this investigation in the letter he wrote to Klocko, and he conducted this investigation within the contexts of his official position as Weston Village Supervisor. Despite Zuleger’s efforts, there was no police investigation, and no lawsuits or charges filed against Paul Klocko.
After being outed by Mark Baldwin, Paul Klocko made the wise and apt decision to publicize this issue. Your continued insistence that somehow he gave up his right to be public because his right to privacy had been unwillingly stripped from him is simply nonsensical.
The saddest thing in all this – and I mean this sincerely – is that CITIZEN WAUSAU missed a chance to investigate a story that could’ve been a wonderful opportunity for a multifaceted, multi-part discussion of the relationship between local politicians, local media and the public. CITIZEN WAUSAU and its contributors are in a unique position to discuss this issue, and I can think of no better topic for discussion on this site. But we don’t have that, for whatever reason. And that’s truly a shame.
You’ve made some very good points, Dino, as has Andy. I also hope that we get to talk more about the broader place of anonymity in public discussion. Still, I’m resigned to the fact that I view the circumstances of this issue very differently than you do. Barring anything new in this discussion, I’m done.
This is a great discussion — and I’m not sure it could even occur on the Herald forums or in the comments after stories because of the culture that has developed on that site. I don’t know the answer to that problem, but I think that it truly IS one.
First off, if you want to write an article about this for Citizen Wausau, please feel free to submit it. I do not think that we would turn it down.
Second, do you have an evidence about any investigation conducted or not conducted by Dean Zuleger? Save for the words in the letter, which we have all agreed was a misguided move, do you have any additional evidence of any thing Dean did or did not do?
Have you spoken to Dean, or Klocko or the reporters Klocko has talked to?
While I agree, the issue of what Mark Baldwin did as staff of the WDH, that is the crucial issue here. What is most absurd is, in my opinion, the action of Klocko. Given the context of this whole thing, this is simply absurd.
If you want to have a discussion about internet anonymity, that would be fine. We are having that discussion internally at Citizen Wausau.
But, a vendetta from Paul Klocko against Dean Zuleger which resulted in the mistakes of Dean Zuleger, and the misstep by Mark Baldwin, this is not the case study we should use. In my opinion.
One of the things the ACLU reminds us of occasionally is that those whose speech is most objectionable are in the greatest need of protection. That would cover Mr. Klocko’s attacks, several of which were over the top, under normal circumstances where the speaker is identified. He chose anonymity, though, which cost him the backing of many. He was playing by the rules of the WDH site, though, which allowed anonymity. This is a good exchange of ideas, but I am not confident we know enough of the details to really nail down the whole story. Did Zuleger ask for a bunch of names or one or two? What kind of relationship did the two men have before and during the flurry of comments? What were all the reasons Zuleger was so upset? What exactly did Klocko say? Unless something new comes out, most of the ground has been plowed.
Pat, those are great questions. There have been a lot of great questions here, and I just want to say that this is the sort of discussion that should be more prevalent on WDH.
While I don’t argue that Klocko acted completely within his rights, I also don’t agree with the way he tried to convey his message. Anonymity is a powerful thing, and he wasted it on childish name-calling.
I also agree that without the most concrete details there’s not much more to say that hasn’t already been said. I’ll just say that if Klocko’s comments were different than what they had been and this had played out the same way I would feel differently about the situation.
Aha, another county heard from. Someone who might know a thing or two about a thing or two.
What we have here…. is a failure to communiciate…
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
Actually, what we have here are three different entities who made bad judgment calls. Had any one of these entities not did what they did, this would be a complete non-issue, so in that regard they are equally at fault.
First off, Klocko used bad judgment in his actions. He made comments (whether protected speech or not, whether policial speach or not) that clearly fell outside of the barriers of common decency and although unclear if they crossed the line of slander or threats, came close enough to warrant the rest of this saga. He failed to live up to the golden rule of treating others how you, yourself would want to be treated by name calling and insults. This is the same tactic used by the playground bully. It is unacceptable in the playground, and it is unacceptable off the playground as well. It has been reported that Klocko admits some regret for taking the actions he did. Showing regret demonstrates two things, acknowledgement that a lack of judgment happened, and a willingness to take responsiblity for that mistake.
Next lack of judgment was Zuleger. As was mentioned, being a fairly high-profile public leader will result in kudos (recieving the Person of Year honors), but it will also result in people who are not happy with you. The more public of a persona you become, the thicker of skin you need to develop – that is just a fact of life. Some critism may actually be constructive. But some will be just mean, it is the nature of the beast. I think back to another think I learned at a very young age – Sticks and stones… The “names will never hurt me” was very hard for me to accept as a youngster being a frequent victim of bullying and being made fun of because I was very different. But as I mature, I realize that there is truth to that saying.
As a matter of fact, a while back I recieved a call from Dean where he shared with me that he had learned the identiy of one of the online posters and was having a moral dilemma and wanted my thoughts. His delimma was his desire to contact and meet with this person to try to figure out what their problem is which may actually make the situation worse… or just follow his strong Christian philosphy of tolerance and acceptance.
I assume that he asked my council because like him, I am in a profession where I will get much more critism than compliments. And, that I have a happen of telling him what I think regardless if that is what he wants to hear. My advice, just let it go. Its a screen name at the web-site throwing out insults trying to get a reaction – by reacting – they win.
And the Wausau Daily Herald, they have also made a mistake. There has been much written about the recent decline and failures of the “local newspaper”, and how tragic this is because of the role that the local newspaper has played in society. There are so many examples of editors and reporters spending time in jail in contempt of court for refusing to turn over information on sources.
Now, although it is nearly impossible to compare an anonymous poster throwing out insults and borderline hate speech on a website to a source for a story, the philosophy of the newspaper to report on all things local and stay neutral in doing so – releasing this information simply because it was requested flies in the face of what newspapers have stood for. Again, a key factor is that the WDH acknoweledged they made a lack of judgement, and changed written policies to ensure such a lack of judgment won’t happen again.
So… three parties… all making bad decisions, equally shared in the problem. However, I am only aware of two of those parties acknowleging that they could have handled the situation better.
According to the WDH staff when they reported about this on their own website a few weeks ago, Zuleger did nto just make a phone call and ask a question.
He DEMANDED the names and he threatened and alluded to a lawsuit or other legal action if he didnh’t get the info he wanted at that moment.
Klocko…that will teach you to be very uncivil in a very public forum.
Zuleger…no excuse for that behavior from a very public official.
WDH…the grand and unforgivable fopar.
I repeat…IF YOU DON”T LIKE IT THERE…DON”T GO THERE!!
Dino -
Your example of the car parked in front of your mother’s house offers a relevant example. The police did the investigation. You didn’t call the police and demand to know who the person was so that you could conduct your own investigation. As I have stated before, the WDH bears by far the greatest blame for what happened. They had all the cards. If the original post was so objectionable they could have not allowed it to be posted. Or if it was illegal they had the right to involve the authorities (as you did in the example you raised). What they did was to enable to allow Zuleger to do whatever he chose to do. And, your insistence that Charles provide evidence that Zuleger conducted this investigation borders on, to use your word, absurd. What more evidence is required beyond Zuleger’s statement that he looked into it?
Now to my main point, Dino. The comparison of the Freedom Riders and Klocko is both valid and accurate. Both were described as doing things that were rude and nonproductive. Klocko’s actions and the Freedom Riders actions are not relevant because the comparison is to the people who made the statements. The use of the Freedom Rider, and even better the Woolworth lunch counter sit in students, is purposeful. Their ultimate goal , and in retrospect their actions, are now considered praiseworthy and justified. But at the time they were criticized for being rude and impolite. So my point was that labelling people rude and impolite, no matter what they did, can be a dangerous thing to do. Because sometimes rude and impolite actions are not only appropriate they may be necessary. Does Klocko rise to this standard? I don’t think so, but he is not being compared to the freedonm Riders et. al. The people accusing Klocko are being compared to the people who labeled them rude and impolite. Whether they are right or wrong being rude and impolite is not, in itself, a reason to ban or diminish an action.
And as to the degree of responsibility for what happened. Zuleger and the WDH have to be the most responsible. Zuleger, appointed or elected, is a public official and clearly should know better. the WDH acted rashly in providing a private citizen with the information with no certainty about how he would use it. And, conjecture on my part, if you, or I ,or thedbc, or Charles, any other posters here went the WDH and “demanded” the name of an anonymous poster it would not have been provided. And it is that that I see the most dangerous intermingling, for whatever reason, of the public official and the news media. Klocko may well be a jerk, but whatever he did, he did nothing that suggests an cooperative effort between the other two. And it is in this behind the scenes cooperation that the greatest danger lies. Much greater than any stupid insults posted by Klocko or any other poster, anonymous or not.
I really don’t have to much to say on this topic, only a thought and a question. I assume that Zuleger did use his position to obtain Klocko’s info, based on the assumption that if I had called the WDH and asked for (or demanded) the same info, I would have been denied. So did Zuleger receive preferential treatment because of his political station?
There’s a theory that if you gave a million monkeys typewriters and set them to work, they’d eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn’t true. — Ian Hart
John -
not only does the quote from Ian Hart add nothing to the conversation, except perhaps a little levity or an expression of condescension towards posters including those posting here, it is not accurate. The actual statement originally required an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite period of time both of which are, of course, impossible to obtain. So this oft repeated example is, like so many other seemingly insightful comments, without real merit because it is as easy to refute as to defend. and both remain impossible since neither can now, or ever, be proved.
“except perhaps a little levity or an expression of condescension towards posters”
my posts don’t always add to the conversation – but I promise they won’t be insulting or what a reasonable person would term as offensive
John, I’m deeply offended that you won’t insult or offend me.
“The actual statement originally required an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite period of time both of which are, of course, impossible to obtain.” — matthew
How dare you suggest there’s only a finite amount of monkeys! You’ve single handedly ruined “Hand, Hand, Finger, Thumb” for my child and I.
Slightly more seriously, what is your basis for suggesting there is only a finite number of monkeys over the infinite timeline? I don’t think there is one, unless you know more about the plight of the monkeys than you’re letting on. Also, it should be noted that the time required is not necessarily infinite; instead, only the time required to type the complete works of Shakespeare is required. By suggesting the time be infinite, there is an assumption before the fact that the works cannot be recreated. So, the entire hypothesis is poorly formed.
matthew –
I’m not driving your argument into the ground to make light of monkeys or the monkeys who do. What I’m saying is that not only does your analysis of the quote from Ian Hart add nothing to the conversation, except perhaps a little levity or an expression of condescension towards posters including those posting here, it is not accurate.
*****
I do make light of this because so much of this is in the eye of the beholder.
Klocko, in a state I can only describe as “a lather”, stated things he felt were reasonable but later, in a different state of mind, described as unreasonable.
Zuleger put the end before the means. One thing that has NOT been mentioned here is he could have hit the abuse button enough times to get Klocko banned from the WDH before it ever came to this. He chose not to regulate the debate when it was already clear that the WDH wasn’t going to and clearly and explicitly expected users to self police. He could have participated in the site discussion and “called out” the anonymous uncredible postings and, in theory, moderated the debate. (I don’t buy that argument, but some do.) That’s part of the responsibility that comes with being a user. Instead, as reported in the WDH, he bullied and threatened and possibly overreacted after having under reacted for too long.
And frankly, the WDH providing the e-mail is just the last part of this. The WDH could have provided clear expectations to its users as to what is and is not acceptable conduct and what their enforcement expectations were. The “Rules of the Road” on the WDH have note changed in 500+ days, suggesting management thought a web community is a plug and play app and thought guidance was an afterthought. Having seen these types of shenanigans on other forums, they really did not understand the growing pains of developing a community, possibly because they did not understand what they were looking for in the first place.
But really, the takeaway is ALL the players in this Klocko drama thought they were acting in a reasonable manner at the time of their actions (or lack thereof) and NONE of them actually were. Which brings me back to my original point – my upper post is the same way. There is a point of view from which that post is perfectly reasonable. Matthew made what is at best a off-topic flawed argument and at worst a personal attack and was called on it. Of course, Matthew probably sees this more as he made a trenchant and humorous point and my reaction is at best an off topic flawed argument and at worst an uncalled for personal attack. In reality, neither post was really that great and we’re both wrong.
Although I’d love to debate the literature writing capabilities of monkeys, should he see fit. I’d note that new world monkeys tend to write Hemingway instead of the Bard. :)
a big LOL goes out to Mr. Farley.
Today is going to be a long and stressful day.
However, starting the day with Mr. Farleys interesting points about the literary capabilities of monkeys ensured that this day will begin with a smile.
Thank you, I needed that
On a serious note: the actual statement abut monkeys, typewriters and the works of Shakespeare is simply used as an expression of the possibility of chance. gGven unlimited time and unlimited opportunity the possibility of anything happening exists. Ergo the monkey/Shakespeare example. Now the serious part. As I said to John, and incurring the wrath of Charles U. Farley, the statement itself is either , or perhaps both, an expression of humor or condescension. No one can deny that the statement, as John presented it, compares people involved in the internet and monkeys. The implication is that people using the internet are not as literary as monkeys. Funny? Perhaps. Condescending? Certainly. If the connotation is not that the people using the internet are not as capable as monkeys it is not at all funny. If that is the connotation, it is condescending. I am not accusing John of that. He merely provided the statement, he didn’t create it and after all, he uses the internet. I am referring to the statement itself. But the most significant problem with it is the lack of perspective it demonstrates. The person crediited with it is Ian Hart. He is, I believe, an Australian. So perhaps ignorance can be used as a defense. But there is nothing more dangerous in the United States than making comparisons to people and monkeys. There is a long, and racially tinged, history of comments involving human beings and monkeys. From the days of slavery through Howard Cosell’s “little monkey” remark through the Rupert Murdoch newspaper cartoon depicting Obama as a monkey the sinple has been used and repeated many, many times. And, even in the rare instances where it was not intended to apply to race, it is always used condescendingly. And, in a bit of irony, the thread began with criticism’s of Klocko for calling people “fat” and “little Hitler” etc. However Klocko never referred to them as something less than human. So, Charles U Farley, I fail to see where I make a personal attack upon anyone. And I stand by my point that any comparison between people and monkeys is condescension. And, given the history of this country, a dangerous and, almot certainly, an inappropriate thing to do.
The humor that I personally find in that quote is that yes, when looking at the level of intellect you often find in online forums, one has to wonder how our society will advance.
It is possibily insulting those those who contriubte to said forums – it is, in a very general way. Personally, I am not insulted by the comment because I feel that I don’t fit into that particular catagory.
However, I am sure that many who contribute to the problem, those that the highly respected Mr Mohawk wants to.. what was it… punch and take away their computer… (I LOVED that post by the way) also probably don’t see themselves as part of the problem either.
As far racial undertones in comparing internet users to monkeys – none was meant nor implied. As a matter of fact, I guess I am naive to the point that I dont understand the racial undertones of the monkey/Obama thing.
However, I did learn how niave I was a while ago with a common expression that I used to use. I did a blog post about “chewing” down prices – thinking that was the saying. Thanks to a comment online, I learned that the actual saying is “jewing” down prices and thusly is derogitory. I have made an effort to not use that statement since. So, it is very possible that my monkey comment is racist without me even knowing it.
John -
if you didn’t intend the comment (and it wasn’t your comment, after all) to be a racist thing then it isn’t. But the comparison of African American humans beings to monkeys is perhaps the most often repeated one in our history. So, as I said, to use it is a dangerous thing to do because readers may infer a racist sentiment where none exists. However, to compare human beings, of any race, to monkeys is condescending. And your comment that you personally are not offended by it because you don’t feel that you are in that group demonstrates the point. You are not offended because you are not in the group, but other people are. And the statement implies that these other people are less capable than monkeys.
Dino’s lack of objectivity on this matter is laughable. Zuleger is the individual who referred City Pages as a “Den Of Satan” because of strip club advertising (In effect, opposing their right to free speech). I suppose in Corvino’s mind, freedom of speech is a subjective concept which can be which can be manipulated anyway to serve his vendetta against me.
Welcome to the discussion. I don’t think we need hold Dino or anyone else here to a standard of objectivity. He has the prerogative to offer his opinion and editorialize as he sees fit. We do however need to hold all discussion participants to a standard of reasonability. All contributors need to be honest and authentic in their comments.
Good question raised about why Zuleger did not press the “abuse” button when he read Klocko’s comments. From what he told me, he did not read the comments as they were appearing, did not follow the daily stream of opinion on the topic, but was told by a friend that strong statements were being made and perhaps he should be concerned. Personally, I love pushing the abuse button!
The funny thing about anonymity…
I’m edbdqt (still technically anonymous, but regular WDH users will know who I am form there) and only initially set up my account on CW v2.0 with a default profile of Charles U Farley because I wasn’t sure what personal info I wanted to divulge (I do try and be a bit more mature here, even if that’s only tilting at windmills) and thought the anonymous pseudonym from “Pump up the Volume” was pleasing until I figured out what I wanted to display. Unfortunately, when I try and update my profile, I get an IE error that closes my session. So, technical help??
Anyhoo, back to the topic: if the quote attributed to Hart is unitentionally racist, then the “Hand, Hand, finger, Thumb” I mention is “The Bell Curve” with more pictures.
I in no way really think matthew was personally attacking John. But, unless we know matt’s body of postings or know matt personally, who’s to say what he really meant? I think a reasonable person could find the man monkey argument far fetched (in fact, many conservatives may find exactly that) and deduce that the post may be personal in nature as opposed to purely intellectual.
When there’s doubt as to the writer’s intentions, we should clarify that doubt with follow up questions (which matt actually did a great job of answering) but when we don’t have that energy/resources do we call it out or ignore it as a matter of course? I think the WDH chose the ignore option too many times.
Technical help: it seems that IE doesn’t want to play nicely with CW in all areas (which is pretty much par for course for IE, but I digress). I will certainly look into a fix for that issue, but in the meantime I humbly suggest using a modern browser such as Firefox.
Couple things, matthew, just so I can put my two-bit humor to work- So is it only African Americans that are compared to monkeys? What if you’re black and live in England? And do whites from Africa count? And where do chimpanzees or apes fit in?
Personally, I’ll take monkeys at typewriters over a bunch of wheat thins.
Matt -
I believe that “monkey” is used as a perjorative in the UK for dark skinned people as well. There was, for example, an incident not so long ago where a black skinned man was beaten in a English city. As he lay dying, a crowd gathered around and began chanting “monkey, monkey”. The police at first did not say there was a racial component to the beating. They have since changed their mind.
As to your other situations, I don’t know. but I can’t ever recall where a white man was compared to a monkey. But I will suggest that comparing anyone to a monkey is not a compliment.
And two things to consider about the cartoon in Murdoch’s newspaper. One, why was the animals that was shot in the cartoon a monkey? If it was meant to be a representation of the Democrats, as the conservatives who deny racism in the cartoon claim. why wasn’t a donkey used? After all, the donkey is much more commonly seen as a representation of the Democrats. Or any other animal? Why a monkey given the historical nature of the black man / monkey comparision? and, secondly, when the cartoon came out and people saw it why did so many people immediately see it as reference to Obama? Was it because he is a black man and the animal that was shot was a monkey? It’s another example why comparing people to monkeys is a dangerous thing to do. And, Matt, any reasonable person with a minimal sense of race history in the US would not be able to eliminate the racial possibility present in the cartoon.
I think you’re reading to much into John’s comment, and then going off on your own with the racial commentary. I was trying to make light of it, and you decided to try and make more sense of it. I’ll remember not to make any sarcastic comments your way next time.
Gee Matt, I apologize for trying to answer your questions and making sense out of what you say.
When I think of man being compared to monkeys, I think of the controversy over evolution and the Scopes Trial in particular. Here’s a link to a few cartoons from that period:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977105561#
I don’t think the monkey characterizations are race based in these cases.