Friday, September 30, 2005

An example of the down-side of anonymous posting

A comment from the


Cowards hid behind the cloak of anonymity to say things that they would be ashamed to have other people know that they said. Here is one such example. I would like to meet this particular coward in person, in order to have a discussion.


(what is wrong Doug, you can dish it out but you can't take it?)

Or how about Doug Roberts and Brad Holian receiving the "let me hold the mud bucket, here is a trowel" prize for defaming a great institution. Hosting, and participating in, the mud slinging that is the unifying element of this site is a notable distinction, but the honor will be passing.

But from me, shame on you both!

It sounds like Gary again, Doug. Doun't let it bother you. He has had a bug up his ass ever since you banned him from the blog. He can't seem to stay away from it, so now he posts anonymously.

Yes, he is a coward.
Let's see--telling the truth about the former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory is "mud slinging" and "defaming a great institution," eh?

That little logical gem can ONLY be true if the failed former Director really IS the institution (apart, of course, from his Nanophants and Nanophiles), and if the 11,000 other workers don't matter one little iota.

Sorry. I don't buy it.
Give us a break. YOU posted a header of self congratulatory nomination of yourselves for the Los Alamos Prize.

The irony is stunning. And it IS your glass house.
Glass houses are a pane.

But seriously, this blog was started to provide an uncensored forum for discussion, after the LANL Public Affairs office shut down the NewsBulletin letters to the editor section. Are you suggesting that I should have censored the submission?

Do you censor any submissions for content?
"Do you censor any submissions for content?"

Yes. I have shielded the readership of this blog from some pretty depressing examples of filth, hate, racism, and other forms of despicable garbage. I nearly gave up on the blog a couple of times as a result.

I am tired of being the blog's garbage collector. The extent to which some of the posters lower themselves under the protection that anonymity gives them is both depressing and telling. Admittedly, with anonymous posting privileges, one doesn't ever really know whether a poster is actually a LANL employee or not, but some of them are. It is the one thing I ever agreed with Stradling on: anonymous posting has probably become more detrimental than any benefits that could come from allowing its continuation. Judging by some of the anonymous comments that I've seen here, there are a number of people working at LANL that the institution would be better off without.
Okay, so you do censor to quash content unfavorable to your views. How do you square that with "providing an uncensored forum for discussion"?
Watch out, Doug. There are most definitely some lurkers on this blog
who are trying to work on your emotions. They are hoping to anger you
to the point you'll just give up. One can only guess about their motives
or who they might be, but it would be best to let them speak to the wind
and then simply ignore them. It's easy enough for most blog readers to
locate precious diamonds in the occasional piles of manure.
However, as you recall when anonymous posting was turned off comment submissions went to near zero.
Maybe that is not a bad thing. I see less value being provided by this blog, and less support for it. It probably is nearing the time when the blog will have outlived its usefullness.


Once again you lead by example. It is too bad that some managers at the lab do not have the wisdom to resign once they have outlived their usefulness.
Thanks, Mushroom. So, let's decide when to shut down this blog. Here are some options:

1. Today

2. December 1 - When the bid winner is to be announced

3. March 31(?) - When the bid winner takes over operations at LANL

That's MAY 31, 2006, and not a day sooner! And since all that bad-vibe crap out there is belied by pronouncements from St. Just-Get-Over-It Pete (no RIFs, no VERIPs, and Bechtel/UC is the favored "team"), there is no more need for The Blog--starting right now!

... But then, if St. Just-Get-Over-It Pete is ... somehow ... wrong ...

The problem is that lately this blog has a spotty record for open commentary. It seems ok to disparage someone's beliefs (Catholics and LDS where posts that were counter were deleted (though the profanity ones should have been others seemed ot disappear also)) but not ok to make small pot-shots at the moderators. It is ok to say Nanos and others are going to be confined to Hell, but not to say that they did anything good.

I agree that it is time to close this blog down.. I think it has served its purpose and you are showing signs of burn-out of keeping it going for a reason you cant remember now.

And no I am not Gary.. I am more of gruntled.

I agree that this phase of the blog is beginning to outlive its usefulness in its current form- instead of being a forum for people to find ways in which to improve the lab, anonymous comments have taken nearly every header topic down to the level of a sandbox S%&!-fight.
Instead of its current free-for-all condition, I think that posting a no-bellyaching and no-unsubstantiated comment rule would serve this blog well. Hopefully it would move discussion away from "Rich Marquez is a turd" or "mormons are evil" and instead allow a forum for addressing problems and networking within the lab community for solutions (i.e.: FM in TA ## is not doing ABC effectively - how shall we fix this?, or Group X has a problem with ### - what's the story?).
With new ground rules, you would be able to delete or redirect anything that becomes a personal attack, sidetracks a given thread, or otherwise makes LANL look like a group of tired 3-year-olds. Perhaps you could even add a seperate gripes header, so that those disposed towards whining or hate can have their own little world to live in, and leave the useful post threads uncluttered by their crap.
This blog would be more valuable (and perhaps find easier access to the powers that be) if it could shake the overwhelming number of bad-tempered, poorly thought out posts in favor of a more professional discussion on the many problems facing LANL at all levels.
Doug and Brad have always had the option of filtering out negative, non-productive material.

The stated purpose of this blog was to drive senior managers from their jobs because the blog managers hated them and their approach to addressing LANL issues. This forum has explicitly been focused on telling negative tales about LANL, its organizations and managers, casting it in the worst light possible.

Rule 3 on posting rules: "no personal attacks,"
applies only to personal attacks against the blog managers and their friends. It explicitly does not apply to attacks on any LANL managers, to those who voice contrary views, to people of faith, and to national leaders. Rules on spelling, grammar, and sense are also observed in the breach to accommodate the capabilities of the cliental.

The fact that the blog participation nose-dived when during the few days when anonymous postings were prohibited AND the fact that the long threads here are the contentious ones demonstrates that it is the bad actors who fuel this blog, not that it is a critical source of important information.

Doug- you seem to have qualms about the harm you are doing and the impact that has on your reputation with responsible people. Shutting this blog down is way overdue. How about today being its last day?
Turning the blog off is way over due. It has lost any of the little significance it once may have had.
I come on to see what trash is being talked. Like watching trash on TV. You are the Geraldo Rivera of the blog world! Feels warm, huh?
You DUH man!

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?