Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Phillies Beat Lowe, Dodgers Bar-right-arrows



Two Wrongs, No Rights, And Why Bloggers Still Struggle For Respect

This has become a pretty popular subject across the network, so I thought I might as well say my piece...

(Not directly related to baseball, so it's continued after the jump)

Star-divide

A few days ago, crappy Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin wrote a crappy article about why Jimmy Rollins deserved to win the MVP. A Phillies blogger disagreed with the idea and sent Conlin an email, asking why Rollins was a better candidate than David Wright. The exchange that followed was inflammatory and less than eloquent, and the blogger decided to post it in full on his website. This has since attracted a lot of attention, and in no small part because of Conlin's Hitler reference, countless people have been taken aback and voiced their desire to see Conlin out of a job. Such behavior is completely inappropriate and offensive, they say, and Conlin should therefore be relieved of his duties.

They're sort of right. Had Conlin acted the way he did in a public forum, he'd almost have to be fired on the spot. But that's not what he did. He sent private (and horrible) emails to somebody who then decided to copy them word for word onto a public website without Conlin's consent. Emails that absolutely would have been written differently had Conlin known that they might get posted. Showing them to his readers is completely unethical on the blogger's part, a violation of the fundamental understanding that one's permission must be sought before his words are shared with those who weren't privy to the discussion. Anyone who fancies himself a bit of a writer ought to know better than to do what the blogger did. It's just irresponsible.

What's done is done, though, and now Conlin's going to come under relentless fire for saying what he said in a series of emails that never should've been brought to anyone's attention. A blogger with a cause can mobilize an awful lot of support, and there are few things people enjoy doing more than complaining about somebody else. Conlin and his superiors are going to be hearing about this for a long, long time.

All because of something the blogger had no right to post. Look, Bill Conlin is the quintessential crotchety old man, a loudmouthed, ignorant curmudgeon who hates everything that happened after the Soyuz program. He is not a good columnist, and he doesn't really deserve his job. At the same time, though, he doesn't deserve to lose his job over something like this, nor should he be severely punished. The day Conlin gets fired for being a dick in a private email is the day you get fired for telling a friend that your boss is stupid and fat. If people were penalized for making the occasional asshole remark, then no one would have a job. What matters is that you're courteous and professional when you need to be, and Conlin clearly didn't interpret this email exchange as one of those situations.

Don't give me the line about how Conlin should've known better than to say those things to a blogger. The blogger should've known better than to repeat them. If you don't like a guy, rip into him for his columns. Don't rip into him for something he said in private correspondence. That's amateurish behavior, and stuff like this is a big reason why bloggers with actual journalistic integrity still struggle to get the kind of respect they deserve. So thanks for setting us back, Bill B. of Crashburn Alley. I hope it was worth it.

0 recs | Comment 156 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I almost got fired
For someone telling ME that he thought the boss was "ugly and fat" (in this case, incompetent).  He overheard the one dude moaning about it, and basically told me I was on his sh*t list, eventually firing me for saying a swear word in his presence that I didn't actually say.

I know that's unrelated, but I agree with you, so there isn't much else for me to say.  

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 1:50 AM PST   0 recs

At least I can rest easy
Knowing that Jeff will not repost any of the (many) compromising emails I may or may not have sent professing my true love for him...

Oh wait.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 1:55 AM PST   0 recs

I understand the blogger was in the wrong
But I think Conlin can not be absolved of all Blame.  I mean, he had to know it was a retarded idea to even write that, he had to have SOME feeling that might get repeated somewhere especially when the guy he's writing to is someone who doesn't really like him or agree with him in any way.  So yes, the blogger was wrong to repost that and it does set back blogging.  

However, anyone with half a brain would know not to send that e-mail to someone who can publish something to a reasonably sized audience.  He shouldn't get fired over this (Maybe over the Jimmy Rollins article though, because that was terrible), or not even necessarily punished, but I do think that it will and SHOULD stick with him and his legacy.  When you think there might be even a 1% chance that your words might get reposted somewhere, and those words could get you fired then you should think first and not send that e-mail.

I agree what the blogger did was retarded and hurts our reputation and credibility.  He shouldn't have done it because it was juvenille to "tell" on Conlin.  But Conlin doesn't get off free either.  His job shouldn't be lost for this, but his credibility is damaged and for good reason.  That's what he deserves, and it already happened.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Nov 24, 2007 2:13 AM PST   0 recs

Hear hear
What the blogger did was blatantly unethical. That said, the journalist should have known what he was going into.

Did Conlin look at crashburnalley.com before his exchange with the blogger? If so, then he should have been aware that the website's author is pretty immature. Having that in mind, Conlin should have chosen his words much more carefully. Especially considering that he picked lousy words to use in the first place.

Just because the blogger had no right to do what he did doesn't mean that Conlin should not have expected it. He's in the public eye, and he should have seen this coming.

by Katal LM on Nov 24, 2007 8:25 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

To summarize
Crashburnalley was in the wrong.

Conlin was even moreso.

by Katal LM on Nov 24, 2007 8:28 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Nice post Jeff...
Interesting reading material.  Conlin's a terrible writer.

For a more reasoned defense of Rollins winning the MVP check out this post by Tangotiger.

It's not entirely convincing but at least he backs it up with numbers and what not.

by Patrick517 on Nov 24, 2007 2:27 AM PST   0 recs

Wait, what?
Rollins is +2 wins with the glove now?

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 2:38 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not sure really...
but he's using his own fans-grade-the-defense study results.

by Patrick517 on Nov 24, 2007 6:21 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Jeff, a question
Do you believe that it is reasonable to write, even in private correspondence, especially to someone you don't know, while performing your job, over the top insults?

Let's say this wasn't an email. Rather just actual mail typed out onto a real piece of paper.

If it was actual mail, would the recipient be justified in complaining about Conlin's response? Or not?

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 2:31 AM PST   0 recs

I absolutely do not think it's reasonable.
I'd never do that, and were I to receive such an email or letter, I'd be offended. However, at the same time I definitely wouldn't air my grievances to the general public. And if the guy writing to me said something way over the top or personally threatening, I'd take it up with his boss, not my readers.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 2:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

But wouldn't the result be the same?
Either way, whether complaining privately or publicly, the offender is not going to be happy. Either way, those sympathetic to the offender are not going to be happy.
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 7:35 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

In one situation
the public is going to be all over the offender. In the other, it won't. That makes a pretty big difference.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 3:40 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It's classless by all parties involved, agreed
but I think the blogger has every legal right to republish them w/o Conlin's consent. Not sure how it works exactly with e-mail.

Not that either party acted in the right, as Jeff says in the title, but I'm thinking Conlin is "more" in the wrong.

by Matthew on Nov 24, 2007 2:40 AM PST   0 recs

Legally, I'm pretty sure he's in the clear.
But that doesn't make it the right thing to do in this kind of situation.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 2:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I wonder....
Just how much of this has to do with the fact that its Philly. Oddest fans in the world, in my experience (aside from Euro sports fans). Didn't they boo Santa and throw snowballs at him? Or was it batteries?

by TheEmrys on Nov 24, 2007 6:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Batteries in snowballs
Or so the myth goes.
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 6:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Philly Fans
Ah, don't lump me in with those cretins. As hard as it may be to believe, I've never booed Santa Claus (possibly because I wasn't born at the time that incident occurred -- back in the 1960's, I believe).

I've never thrown a battery at someone, either.

I did, however, stand up and applaud Barry Bonds in 2006 when he hit his 713th HR off of Jon Lieber, both before, during, and after his at-bat, when everyone else was booing.

I'm not your typical Philly fan, and I often detest the behavior of those fans who do represent Philadelphia.

by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 6:52 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Legal and Moral Aspects
Jeff, as the author of the E-mails you're citing, I can tell you that my intent was never to be inflammatory. In fact, when I said that I wasn't going to bash him, I was being sympathetic. And I never planned on airing our E-mails to the public until he acted immaturely. Even then, I only get a modicum of hits and didn't expect the firestorm that ensued following his Hitler comment. So, you've misinterpreted just about everything there is to misinterpret, but I can't fault you for that. It's hard to interpret tone through mere words on a screen oftentimes.

As for the E-mails, you sounded like you were getting into morals. The legal aspect of it was brought up and is correct: I have the legal right to post any E-mail I receive. Once they click "Send," I essentially get all intellectual rights to the contents of that E-mail. As to whether or not that is right, I guess that's up to each individual. You are not wrong for believing that my actions hinge on immoral, and I am not wrong for believing the opposite. So it goes with moral relativism.

by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 6:45 AM PST   0 recs

Morals aside for a second
Don't you think publishing emails without permission will have a negative effect on -everyone else's- possible future correspondance with journalists and whatnot?

The massive furor this seems to have stirred up might get proffesionals to tread a bit more carefully in their communications with the blogs, or they might go for the efficient solution and hit 'delete email' rather than get drawn into anything (NB: I'm aware you were being civilised and calm throughout that chain of emails, and that Conlin was the one acting like a lunatic).

Do you not perceive this as having a negative effect on mainstream/blog relations? If so, was getting Conlin into what will presumably be lots of trouble worth the future hostility bloggers may receive from sports journalists as a result? I understand you have every right to post whatever ends up in your inbox, but it just seems like a poor strategic move to me.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 7:17 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I didn't mean to imply that you were inflammatory
that was pretty much all Conlin. He acted like a total dick. What I disagree with is the publishing of those emails on a public website. I understand that legally speaking, you have the right to do what you want with private communications, but didn't you think for one second that showing Conlin's Hitler comment to the world might cause a total shitstorm?

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 12:27 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

So you have no problem
with others sharing your private e-mails without your permission?

by Aaron on Nov 24, 2007 3:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Devil's Advocate
When you're emailing people using your office email address, do you call them "bitch"? What if you're a member of the press, whose job it is to write about truth and expose, say, people who mistreat their customers. It's not exactly a private email when you are emailing someone back from your public work email. And it's not like he was confessing something embarrassing to a close friend.  
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 3:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That's not true.
All email SHOULD be private, but it isn't.  Employers monitor their own employee's use of work email all the time.  It's almost common practice now in tech companies.  
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 3:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Conlin has an AOL email address
That's not a work email. (What it is is another clear sign that holy crap Bill Conlin is old)

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 3:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Ha
Well, that's true.  

All I read was that it was the email address posted next to his name on the Philadelphia's news website.  Beyond that, I didn't look into it.

Separate but related, though: If I got an email from Bush or Cheney, that used... say, an anti-semetic slur, I would post it in a second and not regret it at all.  Whether it came from the_decider@yahoo.com, or POTUS@whitehouse.org

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 3:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
And nothing Conlin said could be construed as anti-Semitic.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 3:27 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It wasn't supposed to be
analogous to the situation.  Only a statement about a blurred line.  

Conlin's statements don't really bother me that much, other than he sounds like a complete idiot.

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 3:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's say that's true for a moment
in this particular situation, what makes it okay to reprint the emails?

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 3:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The uncalled for, repeated slander
from a man whose job it is to write for the local print media in a major city, and is thus expected to behave and act responsibly.

This was a man going way out of bounds to slander a reader who went out of his way to write him with thoughtful criticism of a piece he wrote.  If the blogger in question says nothing, then in the public conscience, this never happened.  Is that a good thing?

by Gomez on Nov 24, 2007 5:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You're tacitly validating Conlin's behavior
He receives no recourse for his actions.

by Gomez on Nov 24, 2007 6:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

They weren't that bad.
He was a dick. Lots of people are dicks.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 6:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Go to his boss
Conlin gets fired with no clash between the blogs and the mainstream media. Everyone wins, except Conlin, but that's ok because he's an assdolphin.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 5:56 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Then
You have to explain to the public why he was canned.  The act of punishing him seems like a non-sequitur without the evidence.

... if he is punished at all.  What if the paper decides to cover it up and blow the blogger in question off?  Then it basically never happened.

by Gomez on Nov 24, 2007 6:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Then Conlin gets another job
as if nothing had happened.  People have no idea the guy is a belligerent, childish asshat to dissenters, and in effect, when all is said and done his actions and beliefs are not given their proper due.  That sits about as well with me as the invasion of privacy does with you.

I see the disconnect between our POVs.  I admit I'm lacking the words that would close it at this point.  I see the merit in your argument, though.  I'm not going to deny it's a dicey moral ground.  E-mail and blogs are still relatively new, and the etiquette w/r/t their usage is still being hashed out.

by Gomez on Nov 24, 2007 6:35 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, people know that Conlin is belligerent.
He's had that reputation for a while. But anyway:

Bill Conlin's job is to write articles. Everyone would obviously love for him to be more understanding of other viewpoints, but he's not, and to the best of my knowledge he never has been. How does his acting like an asshole to a reader affect his job performance? And if you're reading one of his articles, why should it make any difference to you whether or not he's an abrasive son of a bitch?

So as far as "people have no idea the guy is a belligerent, childish asshat to dissenters" is concerned, I don't see why that matters.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 6:52 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm not sure
it's ever okay for a newswriter to call someone a bitch.  The etiquette line isn't clear, but it's there.

There comes a point where some moral codes override others, and I think that's where the disconnect comes in: is there a point when one's actions preclude the right to privacy in a given medium?

by Gomez on Nov 24, 2007 6:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah
I suppose the crux of the main disagreement is the location of that point. I don't think this particular exchange crossed the line, but clearly a lot of other people do.

I guess I'm just not real fond of things I perceive as intrusions of privacy.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 7:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Funny
So you don't support warrantless wiretapping, but you support the government's decision to keep their private emails about it a secret, yeah? That'd be too conflicting for me, I think.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 7:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

re: What?
I think he's trying to make a very strained political analogy.

by Aaron on Nov 24, 2007 8:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Bingo
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 8:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not to prove a point, though
Just to state an observation.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 8:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not to jump on the subthread
but your hypothetical depicts rightfully illegal behavior. This isn't close to that.

by Matthew on Nov 24, 2007 8:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You may be right.
It was just my observation. I don't have any talking points. I didn't think anyone was going to respond, either.

Although they claim it's not illegal... hmm...

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 8:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Fine.
There may be cases where violating someones privacy is appropriate, but you should give very good justification for doing so rather than simply dismissively waving a hand and saying "everyones got different morals".

by Aaron on Nov 24, 2007 4:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That I can agree with.
Had the blogger written his reasons for posting the emails (like, if he had been incredibly offended, which by his own admission he had not been), then he would have at least provided his own justification, even if .  He posted them just to show people.  
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 4:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It doesnt matter what server the e-mail comes from
or where it was typed. E-mail is private unless the sender says otherwise. With the exception of direct threats, it doesn't matter how unprofessional the message is, you shouldn't publish it.

by Aaron on Nov 24, 2007 3:40 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Worth it?
I really have no control over whether or not journalists in the future will communicate with bloggers. In the big picture, this is but a blip on the radar. I really don't see this Conlin issue as anything but the week's (or even just the day's) controversy.

Perhaps you're more far-sighted than I am, and this could be the trend among journalists in the future.

However, do all journalists say that the recipient(s) of their message deserve(s) to be silenced or killed, as Conlin implied with this Hitler comments? I think most journalists are able to communicate rationally and maturely to their E-mails, and if not, shame on them.

by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 7:35 AM PST   0 recs

Don't get me wrong
Conlin was completely and utterly out of line in saying to you what he did, and he should have known better. But do you really believe this incident isn't going to be in the back of people's minds when a similar situation pops up? As you said, most journalists are able to communicate rationally, but people take offence to everything these days...

If I were a journalist, my way of stopping this sort of thing would be to not respond to emails like yours at all rather than risk saying something that might be construed as offensive. I could, of course, be totally off base and nothing might come of this at all.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 8:01 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Scared?
I posted a clarification article on my blog that included your question.

http://crashburnalley.com/?p=49

What I said about that:

"If journalists cannot communicate with E-mailers without insinuating that they are worthy of having no freedom of speech and/or worthy of being killed, then that falls on the journalists.

I guess the journalists could be hesitant to respond to E-mailers for anything that might get taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but then again, they can just comb over their E-mails and make sure they were professional, factual, and rational.

It's the journalists' loss -- not the readers' -- if they don't respond to E-mails. When they respond, they are representing the publication they work for, and thus, are advertising in a sense. A good rapport with a reader increases the chance that they will purchase the publication in the future, and a bad rapport decreases that chance. With most print publications hurting, behavior like Conlin's only sets himself and his employer(s) back."

by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 8:03 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

They could just comb it over
But then again, I consider most people to be fundamentally lazy, and will thus likely take the easy way out (am I being too much of a cynic here?).

I guess what this little debate comes down to is whether you consider relations with the mainstream press to be particularly important. Honestly, I think that proffesional journalists can offer us a lot more than we can them (assuming they aren't nutcases). I know the M's blogs have very good relationships with some of the local beat writers, Athletics Nation as well with theirs, and that having that network in place is a very useful tool.

Obviously, the whole Conlin thing won't damage any relationship already in place, but it might make establishing future ones more difficult. Then again, it might not. But we all have our own opinions :).

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 8:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

relations won't be effected
Graham -

I share your concerns, but in this case I don't think it will hurt or hinder relations.  

MSM who are interested in having relationships with bloggers or their readers in general aren't the ones who would send responses like Conlin's.  

Essentially the Conlin types are lost causes anyways.  So sure, those in Conlin's camp might hit delete instead of responding, but is that a great loss at that point?

Do you really think that the types of writers who would write the things that Conlin did could be "won over"?

by billfer on Nov 24, 2007 9:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, I do... sort of
There are surely plenty of people who dislike blogs not out of malice but out of ignorance, and just because they're curmudgeoenly old men doesn't mean they're unreasonable. Conlin's 'camp' reacts the way it does towards blogs and statistical analysis because they're traditionalists and they don't really understand what it is we do.

I believe that at least some of them might be won over by well thought out debate - which incidentally is what the Crashburn Alley guy was attempting to engage Mr. Conlin in. Publishing the emails will just lead to more friction on both sides, however, and that mutual aggression is precisely why Conlin behaved the way he did in the first place*.

Why fan the flames? Even Conlin himself changed his position on Bert Blyleven's HoF-worthiness, apparently as the result of an email exchange from a reader, so it's hard for me to paint his entire camp as irredeemable.

*That and the fact that he's got all the mental prowess of a toothbrush.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 9:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Conlin
I didn't publish the E-mails until after Conlin made the Hitler comment. So his words weren't based on the knowledge that I was making his words public.

by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 10:37 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Maybe you're right
You may be right, I'm just not as optimistic - but I'm probably colored by the Chris McCosky article in Detroit.  Numerous well reasoned, non-combative emails were sent to McCosky by various bloggers (and I'm sure a number of hate filled name calling emails were sent as well), seeking dialogue.  McCosky didn't reply to any of them to the best of my knowledge.

I just view it as there are those receptive to blogs, some who don't really know what to think, and those who are against it.  

I don't really know what those on the fence would make of it

by billfer on Nov 24, 2007 1:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The very first email
identified the fact that it was a blogger talking.    It not like they were drunk at a Christmas party.  Conlin knew full well who he was talking to.

For a journalist, sports fans -- and even more so sports communities -- are your customer.  You can't talk to the customer like that and expect them to not tell their friends.

by oneiric232 on Nov 24, 2007 8:09 AM PST   0 recs

I can't agree with that
If he knew what he was doing he'd never have said the absurd things he did - he's just an idiot who doesn't know any better.

by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 8:25 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

if a blogger asked a public service worker
whether or not they liked their job and they replied, "sure - I do half a days work for a full days pay" - and that were posted online, they would surely be fired.  

Is being the idiot who should have known better really an adequate explanation for horrible judgment?

"back in the day, Reggie Jackson would have called that a 'tits high' pitch" - Dave Henderson
the log

by OlyOle on Nov 24, 2007 9:28 AM PST   0 recs

The only problem I have
is when you post stuff like that, you are kinda looking to get somebody fired.  If that is your motivation then I think that is a little heartless.  I understand being surprised by the responses and offended but is it really worth getting somebody fired.  There were other paths that did not involve going public with all of it that probably would have been better for all parties.  Maybe when the emails were posted, the repercussions were not considered.  I'm not sure if that is better or worse.

by Edgar for Pres on Nov 24, 2007 11:00 AM PST   0 recs

after reading that
I would definitely fire that guy, but not because of the Hitler comment, just because he obviously has no fucking clue about how baseball works and is offended and threatened by advancement when it is his job to at least make an attempt understand it.

But really, what he said wasn't that horrific, he clearly says the only good thing about Hitler's time on earth, he wasn't being pro-Hitler. For someone to be offended by anything other then his rudeness is just an over reaction on their part. Social censorship through political correctness once again going too far

Don't listen to their lies, Bill! Look at the sparkly ERA! Sparkly sparkly! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown2 on Nov 24, 2007 12:07 PM PST   0 recs

I'll be honest
I wasn't offended by Conlin's Hitler remark. It was clearly a retarded thing to say, but we've all made off-color remarks to someone or another, and I'm sure Conlin doesn't really think that bloggers should be exterminated. It was just something he said for effect when he was in an angry mood. But that's not how it's going to be interpreted, and now he's going to catch all kinds of fire for (A) something he doesn't really believe, and (B) something he absolutely wouldn't have said had he known it would be shown to a wider audience.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 12:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I forget what they called it
but the Economist made reference once to a 'law' that as an online discussion grows longer and more heated, the chance of Hitler coming up in it approaches one. The corrolary, IIRC, is that whoever it is that brings him up is automatically wrong.

by Mere Tantalisers on Nov 24, 2007 12:18 PM PST   0 recs

Godwin's Law
that's what it was

by Mere Tantalisers on Nov 24, 2007 12:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

he was an attorney
Don't listen to their lies, Bill! Look at the sparkly ERA! Sparkly sparkly! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown2 on Nov 24, 2007 1:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Allow me to re-state something here:
I believe both Conlin and the blogger were in the wrong. What Conlin did was totally stupid, and I am in no way sympathetic to his position. However, while it's clear why what Conlin did was dumb, barely any attention has been paid to the question of whether or not it's all right to post private emails on a blog, which triggered this post.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 12:44 PM PST   0 recs

Then I guess we're agreed.
There was a crappy Mariner columnists a few years back who became kind of famous for his rude, barely comprehensible emails. To the best of my knowledge, no blogger ever posted the content of one of these for his readers. That columnist was later fired for being bad at his job. It was nice.

by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 12:53 PM PST