This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Brooklynian vs. Brooklyn Paper and Smartmom - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Brooklynian vs. Brooklyn Paper and Smartmom

2»

Comments

  • caseopele
    caseopele
    Because I never posted lies, the people who told me their experiences are trustworthy people. If I felt I couldn't trust what they told me I never would have posted it. And there's a difference between a regular person like me posting about negative experiences on an internet message board and a journalist writing a biased story in a newspaper. Also, I added the censorship quote to my signature after the new owners approached my boss to ask him to make me be quiet. They didn't just ask why I was writing about them, they asked him to get me to stop, a fact that Gersh left out of his story. A journalist has a responsibility to tell the truth and to fact check before writing a story. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, they are only contributing to the stereotypical image of the media sacrificing truth for sensationalism.
  • bklyngirl
    bklyngirl
    caseopele wrote: Because I never posted lies, the people who told me their experiences are trustworthy people. If I felt I couldn't trust what they told me I never would have posted it. And there's a difference between a regular person like me posting about negative experiences on an internet message board and a journalist writing a biased story in a newspaper. Also, I added the censorship quote to my signature after the new owners approached my boss to ask him to make me be quiet. They didn't just ask why I was writing about them, they asked him to get me to stop, a fact that Gersh left out of his story. A journalist has a responsibility to tell the truth and to fact check before writing a story. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, they are only contributing to the stereotypical image of the media sacrificing truth for sensationalism.
    I dunno. I guess i don't consider bloggers and local newspaper hacks to be "journalists". If it was Brian Williams, or the new York Times, then i'd be bugged.

    or maybe no. I pretty much don't care what anyone thinks of me except my friends, family and collegues. Call me a junkie crack ho, lying sack of s***, and I would't really be bothered.
  • MOD
    MOD
    bklyngirl, would you be bothered if it affected your job and your boss was brought into the mess? Yeah, I don't think you get it.
  • livetotravel
    livetotravel
    I don't want to start another firestorm - but, vis-a-vis a boss finding out what your posting - if your bring your employer/boss into the discussion, no mater how innocently or naively you do that, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

    Isn't that Internet 101?
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    Livetotravel wrote: I don't want to start another firestorm - but, vis-a-vis a boss finding out what your posting - if your bring your employer/boss into the discussion, no mater how innocently or naively you do that, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

    Isn't that Internet 101?
    i don't think anyone's arguing that caseopele didn't put herself at risk for what happened, just that it was obnoxious for the elementi folks to handle it this way. (just as no one would advise you to walk down flatbush waving $100 bills but i certainly hope no one would say later that it was right for a mugger to separate you from them.)

    however, regarding gersh, i do stand by my analysis of that article as purely an attempt to discredit the untrustworthy, un-papery interweb.
  • jennitrixie
    jennitrixie
    bklyngirl wrote:
    I dunno. I guess i don't consider bloggers and local newspaper hacks to be "journalists". If it was Brian Williams, or the new York Times, then i'd be bugged.
    I didn't realize people actually read the local free papers, let alone took anything in their grammatically challenged pages seriously enough to involve bosses, etc.

    Dude, if people think this blog [sic] is harsh and feisty, they either need to get out more, or stay in their padded room.
  • bklyngirl
    bklyngirl
    Mamacita wrote: bklyngirl, would you be bothered if it affected your job and your boss was brought into the mess? Yeah, I don't think you get it.
    I think I missed that part. Where was that in the article? :?
  • bklyngirl
    bklyngirl
    sweet tea wrote: [quote=Livetotravel]I don't want to start another firestorm - but, vis-a-vis a boss finding out what your posting - if your bring your employer/boss into the discussion, no mater how innocently or naively you do that, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

    Isn't that Internet 101?
    i don't think anyone's arguing that caseopele didn't put herself at risk for what happened, just that it was obnoxious for the elementi folks to handle it this way. (just as no one would advise you to walk down flatbush waving $100 bills but i certainly hope no one would say later that it was right for a mugger to separate you from them.)

    however, regarding gersh, i do stand by my analysis of that article as purely an attempt to discredit the untrustworthy, un-papery interweb.

    I really apologize ahead of time, as I don't want to be a "gadfly", but I am getting the impression that some of the posters here know each other outside this board. Please don't be angry with those of us who don't know whatever is the whole story.

    All I read and reacted to is what was on this thread. It's hard being the new kid in school. :?
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    bklyngirl wrote: [quote=sweet tea][quote=Livetotravel]I don't want to start another firestorm - but, vis-a-vis a boss finding out what your posting - if your bring your employer/boss into the discussion, no mater how innocently or naively you do that, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

    Isn't that Internet 101?
    i don't think anyone's arguing that caseopele didn't put herself at risk for what happened, just that it was obnoxious for the elementi folks to handle it this way. (just as no one would advise you to walk down flatbush waving $100 bills but i certainly hope no one would say later that it was right for a mugger to separate you from them.)

    however, regarding gersh, i do stand by my analysis of that article as purely an attempt to discredit the untrustworthy, un-papery interweb.

    I really apologize ahead of time, as I don't want to be a "gadfly", but I am getting the impression that some of the posters here know each other outside this board. Please don't be angry with those of us who don't know whatever is the whole story.

    All I read and reacted to is what was on this thread. It's hard being the new kid in school. :?

    some of us do know each other -- come to a happy hour sometime! -- but everything we've been talking about here refers to the original thread that the article was talking about, which you can find using the search function. (also, i think someone posted it on smartmom.)
  • caseopele
    caseopele
    I absolutely made mistakes here, telling where I worked and talking to Gersh Kuntzman. My bad! I take full responsibility and I apologized to my boss (who is all kinds of awesome) shortly after it happened. What I don't apologize for are my comments regarding the new owner's attitude. I was hearing from customers almost daily about how they felt insulted by the "Snooky's crowd" comments for months. These were nice people who couldn't understand why the new owners disliked them so much. People who have lived in PS for their whole lives and felt like they weren't "good enough" to be allowed into Elementi. Most were not computer savvy and I chose to post their experiences because I didn't think it was fair. Not that I think I'm some crusader or something but because I would want to know if I wasn't involved. I'm not rich, I don't get to eat out very often so when I do I'd like to be aware of who I'm giving my money to.

    bklyngirl, we were all the new kid here once. I may not have met many of the people here but I've posted frequently. My posts gave the people here an idea of the kind of person I am. I've also encouraged some people to come and visit my job or to stop and say hello if they see me walking my dogs. (I'm kind of easy to recognize and you're welcome to stop by anytime to see for yourself that I'm not some evil witch!) It's one of the reasons why I was so upset that the new owners went to my boss instead of speaking to me directly. Or posting here on the board, there have been a number of instances where an owner has done that. Anyway, here's the quote from the article mentioning the incident:

    "Not knowing what to do, the Rutledges committed the cardinal sin of the Internet era: They went across the street to Caseopele’s employer — whose name was mentioned in one of her posts — and asked him why one of his employees would be trashing the still-opened restaurant."
  • restless native
    restless native
    I for one am deeply gladdened by the idea of being dubbed "toxic" by 'not-nearly-as-smart-as-she-thinks-mom'. :D/
  • dw438
    dw438
    Wait, there's more!

    (Mod note: I added quote tags and added the direct link to the post you're quoting to make it a bit more clear that this was from Smartmom's site and not something you wrote.)

    From http://onlytheblogknowsbrooklyn.typepad.com/only_the_blog_knows_brook/2007/09/i-like-real-nam.html:
    Smartmom wrote: I LIKE REAL NAMES OR CONSISTENT WEB ALIASES
    I understand pseudonyms and nom de nets; the need to protect friends and family; the need to protect oneself from employers and corporations; the right to privacy and the dangers of being a public blogger...

    Still, I like real names (or consistent web aliases) because I like to know that there's a real person, who is willing to take responsibility for what they are writing, on the other side of that post.

    Especially on a place blog or a community blog.

    We all share the same streets and avenues, whether its physical space or cyber space. We live together and we choose to do it in an openhearted, respectful, generous and graceful way.

    Our community is a healthy mesh of opposites. That's what we love about Brooklyn, right? It's an energetic, diverse, creative, messy, expressive, sometimes explosive, sophisticated and opinionated place.

    Express your thoughts and opinions in a civil and respectful way. That's totally fine. Leave your real name. And definitely don't use someone else's name (which someone has been doing).

    Use your real name and be yourself. Warts and all.

    But hiding behind masks and spewing insults? That's pretty weird.

    Just because I don't like reading Brooklynian, for instance, doesn't mean I feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym and leave insulting comments.

    I don't believe in that. I've got my own blog, with my name on it, where I can express myself. How cool is that?

    Comments
    go tell that to Mark Twain....

    Posted by: doggybloggy | Sep 10, 2007 10:31:50 AM

    Dear Ms. Crawford,
    With no disrespect intended, I must disagree with you. While I believe that this particular post was intended for a specific anonymous audience or commenter, I do think that when you speak about in anonymity in a general way, you should choose your words a bit more wisely.
    The Internet is the place for anonymity. And, while I do think that remaining anonymous in certain contexts can be wrong, disrespectful, heck, even illegal, I do not think that these indiscretions makes anonymity negative in all contexts. In fact, I think the power of the anonymous person is very great. Especially in the blogosphere.
    Whether you have a light-hearted blog, or a brutal political debate forum, its important to have a space that is designated for the people who want to have a voice, but not necessarily a face or "name." I think it would be ludicrous for everyone to put their name out there just for the sake of their....? I'm not even sure what kind of credit your real name entitles you.
    I go by Brooklyn Bitch, but if you must know, my name is Sarah. Am I somehow a more legitimate blogger or commenter now that I've spilled the beans? If I left my whole name, for someone to google, they'd find a picture me dancing in a production of Signin' in the Rain from ages ago. And that's not something I'd want particularly. Not because I'm afraid to show my "warts and all," but because, when I'm blogging, I'm Brooklyn Bitch, not Sarah. It's the part of me that I want to bring to the table. And, I do have something to offer, in a respectful and creative way, without using my given name.
    We don't always share the same streets, and, even if we do, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is entitled to know who I am and everything I represent in my own life. The blog is a way of documenting anything from a piece of who you are, to the whole she-bang, and it's for the blogger and the commenter to decide how much they want to disclose.
    Anonymity is something that brings people out to speak, who might not have if they'd had to put their name on it. And anything that gets people's beliefs, opinions, art....the list goes on, out there, well...How cool is that?

    Sincerely,
    Brooklyn Bitch

    Posted by: Brooklyn Bitch | Sep 10, 2007 9:47:38 AM

    I'm sure Tabloid Mom, Groovy Architect Mom and Brain Lawyer all agree with your oh-so-noble stance on using real names.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Posted by: Pot Kettle | Sep 9, 2007 7:56:30 PM

    Yes, mom.
    This coming from someone who writes mostly in the third person (and in doing so spawned some devastating parody) and gives psuedonyms to many. Ha!

    Posted by: Dave Roberts | Sep 9, 2007 11:25:47 AM

    That is very cool indeed! Here here. Taking responsibility for one's written, verbal and material productions is the hallmark of a true adult, one who truly beieves that his or hers thoughts and feelings are worthy of expression and are representative of who they really are. Not wanting one's true intentions known is a sure sign of immaturity, insecurity and paranoia. I always use my real name in this blog and any other blogs or magazines or newspapers or books in which I am frequently published or quoted. Why wouldn't I? Because some people will disagree with me? Because some will get angry? What's to fear in that?

    Posted by: Peter Loffredo | Sep 9, 2007 10:55:55 AM
  • poot
    poot
    I dunno. I guess i don't consider bloggers and local newspaper hacks to be "journalists". If it was Brian Williams, or the new York Times, then i'd be bugged.

    or maybe no. I pretty much don't care what anyone thinks of me except my friends, family and collegues. Call me a junkie crack ho, lying sack of s***, and I would't really be bothered.
    Not to stray too far off topic, but why does someone have to write for a major newspaper or appear on a popular tv network to be considered a journalist? Everyone has to start somewhere, and most people have humble beginnings. Or humble careers. You don't have to respect the local rag - or someone making a go of it on the web - but that doesn't necessarily mean these people aren't journalists.
  • daver
    daver
    poot wrote: Not to stray too far off topic, but why does someone have to write for a major newspaper or appear on a popular tv network to be considered a journalist? Everyone has to start somewhere, and most people have humble beginnings. Or humble careers. You don't have to respect the local rag - or someone making a go of it on the web - but that doesn't necessarily mean these people aren't journalists.
    Along these lines, where does smartmom get off requesting people to use their real names? Does the absence of a "real" name make one's comment have any less value? Sure there are useless trolls on there, but the absence of a real name doesn't _make_ one a troll.

    I would REALLY hesitate to use a real name there for the obvious reason: the big problem in my mind with this whole <restaurant> mess in the first place is that when the owner of said establishment didn't like what was being said, he went after people jobs. Their livelihood. I'm sure smartmom would _love_ to get some more real names. Why? I don't know. I'm not accusing her of wanting to take up the torch on trying to get folks fired, but I wouldn't blame people for not wanting to open themselves up to that sort of harassment. Especially since it has ALREADY BEEN DONE by the owners of said restaurant.

    I understand the arguments about anonymity on the internet, but if there was ever a case to be anonymous then making any comment about _this_ particular restaurant is it!
  • caseopele
    caseopele
    I agree, daver. One other thing is that Louise has nothing to lose by people knowing her real name. And has she ever heard of stalkers?
  • apollonia666
    apollonia666
    Hey, far be it from me to defend Smartmom, but in the post you're referencing here she says real names or consistent web aliases.

    http://onlytheblogknowsbrooklyn.typepad.com/only_the_blog_knows_brook/2007/09/i-like-real-nam.html

    So I don't see quite why anyone should be up in arms over this.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories