Matt Varble over at Champaign American Blog is attempting to 'out' IlliniPundit over discussion and differences about Matt's smoke-free ordinance. I support the ordinance. I hate Varble's actions.
Matt on his blog states
I also believe a self proclaimed anonymous blogger posing as some authority is a big pile of horse manure (not to mention hypocritical) and should be held up to the light and exposed. All credible publishers are publicly identified or known as I choose to be and it should be that way if somebody begins hitting too close to home with local politics. As I've asserted thousands of times before, don't blog if you wish to truly remain anonymous.
That, Matt, is a load of crap.
There are many reasons to retain a bit of anonymity. I have because I'm confident that my employer wouldn't appreciate it. It also allows me to write some things I wouldn't or couldn't in other circumstances. It's as much to protect my employer as to protect me.
Matt, on the other hand, chose to write under his own name. Good for him. That's what the internet's all about: choices. Options.
Sometimes anonymity is the best option. We're not fighting the Revolutionary War here.
When Varble ran for ciity council, he was taken seriously. Lately his shrill diatribe has revealed more.
A reminder from our 16th president:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Capitol Fax Blog has urged other bloggers to remove their links to Varble's blog until he ends thos outing crusade.
I already have.
And so it goes.
5 comments:
BTW, I need to add you to at least the extended blog role....
Feel free. Something I need to do?
Well said especaily the Lincon quote.
While I am about to get onto an airplane, I will make this brief response about why I have speculated about the IllinPundit's identity:
1. I have reason to believe and speculate that the IlliniPundit blog is comprised of some public officials, which could be considered as unethical or official misconduct and have asked people to speculate about the identity of the person. Actually it is more likely several people, that if identified would make quite a big stink in the community based off what has been previously stated.
2. I am not attempting to get anyone "fired". If somebody is at risk of being terminated for expressing their views on an internet site, then they shouldn't assume that risk.
3. I have no problem admitting that I dislike the IlliniPundit's blog and what they have said in the past. Here's why: Part of this goes to my belief that a gutless pundit who poses as some authority on a subject and wishes to challenge and debate me and demands I release information to him and then turns around an and uses it to try and attack the issue instead of holding an intellectual debate (i.e. the smoke free Alliance information binder) and then refuses to identify themselves is ridiculous. That site also engaged in personal attacks/and or decided to assail me without giving me the benefit of knowing who they were, which is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Should John Kerry or Michael Moore have stood behind a curtain and remained anonymous when criticizing or debating the President or protesting about an issue? Absolutely not. The people wouldn't stand for it, and I assert the same reasoning here. It's fine if you wish to remain anonymous and blog, but when you begin to demand information and debate on a matter of public policy, and then begin to attack someone whom is identified, it's only fair that the public knows your identity as well.
4. I believe the general response from individuals such as the Old Guy and Rich Miller has been done out of context and without them seeing or understanding all of the facts and past history of what went on before drawing their conclusions. They probably didn't know very much about this until IlliniPundit began screeching bloody murder about my speculation as to their identity and then drew a premature conclusion about the immediate past few days instead of the bigger picture here.
5. Doesn't it draw a question in your mind as to why the IlliniPundit is so concerned about their identity being revealed? Something is rotten in Denmark and I picked up upon this a long time ago folks.
1. I have reason to believe and speculate that the IlliniPundit blog is comprised of some public officials, which could be considered as unethical or official misconduct and have asked people to speculate about the identity of the person. Actually it is more likely several people, that if identified would make quite a big stink in the community based off what has been previously stated.
Prove it. You can't, because you're wrong. But that won't stop you from making baseless attacks.
2. I am not attempting to get anyone "fired". If somebody is at risk of being terminated for expressing their views on an internet site, then they shouldn't assume that risk.
I'm willing to assume that risk now. I can always find another career, but chances to stand up to threats like this only happen once in a lifetime.
3. I have no problem admitting that I dislike the IlliniPundit's blog and what they have said in the past. Here's why: Part of this goes to my belief that a gutless pundit who poses as some authority on a subject and wishes to challenge and debate me and demands I release information
I asked you to release information to the public, not to me. Information that your group was trying to use to impact public policy. You still have not released the information to the public - I acquired it through other sources and put it online.
to him and then turns around an and uses it to try and attack the issue instead of holding an intellectual debate (i.e. the smoke free Alliance information binder) and then refuses to identify themselves is ridiculous.
I asked for this information to be released to the public because I was certain that you were exaggerating the results of your poll, and I was confident that the public would realize that if the information were available. I was right.
That site also engaged in personal attacks/and or decided to assail me without giving me the benefit of knowing who they were, which is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
My commenters have been very rough on you. But I have stayed above the fray, dealing with issues only. And you could have avoided the nasty commenters by simply not replying to them - but you actively participated in the flame wars, and now complain that I didn't protect you.
Should John Kerry or Michael Moore have stood behind a curtain and remained anonymous when criticizing or debating the President or protesting about an issue? Absolutely not.
I'm not running for office. I'm not debating the President. If you don't want to answer questions on my blog, then don't.
The people wouldn't stand for it, and I assert the same reasoning here. It's fine if you wish to remain anonymous and blog, but when you begin to demand information and debate on a matter of public policy, and then begin to attack someone whom is identified, it's only fair that the public knows your identity as well.
I didn't demand anything. I didn't attack you personally. Anonymous participation in debates on public policy are a long, honored American tradition (Silence Dogood, Publius, etc.)
4. I believe the general response from individuals such as the Old Guy and Rich Miller has been done out of context and without them seeing or understanding all of the facts and past history of what went on before drawing their conclusions. They probably didn't know very much about this until IlliniPundit began screeching bloody murder about my speculation as to their identity and then drew a premature conclusion about the immediate past few days instead of the bigger picture here.
Rich Miller and I first talked about you when you first threatened me with a "misconduct" charge in April. He's quite familiar with the entire story.
5. Doesn't it draw a question in your mind as to why the IlliniPundit is so concerned about their identity being revealed? Something is rotten in Denmark and I picked up upon this a long time ago folks.
I'm concerned because I don't think I should have to respond to bullying tactics, threats, or intimidation. I've done nothing wrong, immoral, dishonest or illegal. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see your evidence. Otherwise, I'm not going to be silenced by the likes of you.
Post a Comment