14 Comments Add your own

• 1. Quintessential Ray  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm

  Hey, I like the promo out on the RRS home page. It says:

  “Converse with Chuck Sweeny on his blog.”

  HA, this is funny. Chuck doesn’t converse. So it’s more like, “talk to a wall on Chuck’s blog.”

• 2. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  I’m not sure what the point is of conversing with anonymous people.

• 3. Jim O'Neill  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  Chuck…interaction is one point of blogs. You get to converse with the public about what you write, find out their opinions, get news tips, etc. You should see this as a reporting tool. I don’t think you should dismiss it so easily.

• 4. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm

  Thanks for using your name, Jim. I’m used to conversing with people who sign their names, I think it gives their e-mail or posts credibility. People frequently comment on my columns, and mostly they use their names. If you read my columns, you know that I often print a column of reactions to previous columns. I print responses from people who agree, and those who disagree.
  But anonymous insults aren’t something I’m going to waste time on.
  So, Jim, whaddya think of Clinton comparing herself to Rocky Balboa?

• 5. Jim O'Neill  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  I think it is a reach, Chuck. Not going to resonate with a lot of people. But when you are down, you have to pull out all punches (pun intended). I’m not a Hillary hater like you, but we can both agree the hyperbole of politics takes on ridiculous proportions at times. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of politicians are panderers who care more about saying and doing things to get elected than they do about saying and doing things because they are the right thing to say or do.

• 6. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  I don’t hate Hillary but I do think that there are more than two families who can run America. I am really tired of Bushes and Clintons. I think both families have too many corrupt hangers-on.
  I could live with either Obama or McCain.

• 7. Benjamin Franklin  |  April 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  Chuck, you know, I understand your point (about the anonymity thing.) But I’m not sure you’ve thought this out very well. See, as exemplified by this post…I can put in any name I want….real or otherwise. It doesn’t help you know who you’re talking with. There are technological ways around this, of course, but you have to ask yourself, why do most publications not put in those controls? The obvious answer leads me to the second point, which is, it would limit the audience, which is used to the Internet being a town square. And the people who come here, whether they post anonymously or not, are the people you are going to need if you wish to survive. So, dismiss away if you wish, but I’m not sure you quite ‘get it.’ If the quintessential rays of the world go away, you might find yourself talking to yourself.

• 8. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 4th, 2008 at 9:41 am

  So, Ben Franklin, or Ray, or whatever your name is, do you wish to comment on anything relevant about the topic?

• 9. John Hancock  |  April 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am

  Sure Chuck, while the Rocky analogy doesn’t work for her considering the outcome of the first film, you will of course recall that Rocky eventually wins the title after a lot of struggle.

  With regard to relevance, I guess I should remind you that you brought up the issue of anonymity. Guess I would just say I know the changes in the industry are hard for really old time journalists like you. You’re used to being able to say what you think and not have to listen to us peons. Well, the rules of have certainly changed, haven’t they Chuckster.

• 10. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  I heartily embrace any and all changes in our industry. You betcha! As I said earlier, I regularly devote columns to reader reaction, including as many people who disagree with what I’ve written as I can cram in to the column.

• 11. hokumboy  |  April 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  Chuck,
  why, if anonymity is so distasteful, do you sign in only as “Chuck” over on the Cunningham siite. Or, am I wrong and owe an apology ?

• 12. Chuck Sweeny  |  April 8th, 2008 at 9:38 am

  I think I’ve commented on Pat’s web site once, and I used my name. There are probably other Chucks out there, Mr. or Mrs. Hokumboy.

• 13. hokumboy  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:19 am

  Then I apologize.
  After seeing so many of the psycho-posts that occurred on the various “Story-Chat” entries I’ve preferred to remain anonymous in my postings.

• 14. Henry  |  April 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  Chuck -

  This is the first time at your blog and I can’t understand all the personal attacks. No matter the topic, most of the posts just are name calling and attacks, instead of sticking to the topic. I have enjoyed your column for many years and I’m disappointed at the level of discourse of your readers. I think Rockford’s CAVE people have found a home online. Regarding anonymous posts, who cares if the posts are reasoned and thoughtful?

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed