Dominatrix_2 ROC and cathar, regular posters, seem to have deserted our site. JMo’s personal integrity was attacked. This thread (99 comments at this count) is so full of bile and mud-throwing, it’s really hard to read.

We’re not saying that we all have to join hands and sing “Kumbaya.” We throw punches too. And there’s some good pungent commentary here on a regular basis.

If you want to attack the editors of Barista, fine, we can defend ourselves. But please refrain from outright nastiness to your fellow posters. We’re running a little business here, and we work hard to bring you lots of local news, humor and listings. Please refrain from scaring the clientele.

We don’t want to have to vet comments, ban commenters or make users register, but we will if we have to. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Our apologies to JMo for the uncalled-for attack on his character.

110 replies on “Don’t Make Us Get Tough With You”

  2. I think the animals have already escaped. But maybe if we close the barn door now, some of them will come back.

  6. OK, I’ll bite: That was indeed one nasty thread.
    BUT – If some provocative coward wants to attack me personally …well, that is crossing the line Big Time – not to mention totally stupid on more levels than anyone cares to go into.
    I’m taking a break from this board. So long and peace.

  7. Looks like the Free Rabies Clinic opened just in time!
    Line up, y’all! Girls on the right, boys on the left.
    I’m getting my shots first!

  8. Barista….
    As I have mentioned before, You should get vbulletin based Forum on here ASAP. Then link the forum thread to your story or pic. Have registered users and such.
    It gets way to heated in here and you’ve outgrown the TYPEPAD style blog commenting.

  11. Picture this walleroo….
    Italics, Bold, Avatars, signatures…
    It can all become reality.
    I am sure they can keep their banner ads on the side and top, and can even frame them inside the original site if that’s their preference.
    🙂

  13. I also have gotten into a tussle with Miss Marta before, for which I apologize. But I don’t see the need to track her like sherlock holmes.

  14. I think you have enough reasonably intelligent, literate, and sensible people to support your blog without all of us having to suffer the mud slingers and anonymous snipers. I also think you do an excellent job of keeping the threads under control — when you can. I for one would be delighted to register and sign in to post here. The brick throwers probably aren’t supporting your sponsors anyway, so who needs them?
    Pungent and snarky, si; bilious and cowardly, no.
    p.s. Love your whip.

  15. I agree with Conan & others on this. I think if people had to register under a REAL email addy, they’d be less apt to sling mud.

  17. Ive seen it happen to other active forums, go to registered ID’s and you will get as much traffic as a dead end street in Montana.

  18. I find it fascinating how many people will comment under obviously fake email addresses. Anyway, I agree with the last commenter – registering for all comments drags the fun out of it all.
    Forums, on the other hand, let it ride as an accompanying part of the site. But I’d never get rid of the comments.

  20. I think the move to a forum would be better, you can keep the TYPEPAD comments if u must. But this site can and seems to be more than a blog. Even if it’s just us posters elevating it. Monclair/Bloomfield/Glenridge, etc.. theres too many of us and not enough online forums….

  21. Perhaps it will deaden traffic somewhat, but when so much of it is as bad as spam, that might be not such a bad thing. Maybe La Barista’s foot-stamp at the beginning of this skein will quite things down. I hope so. Just wanted to chime in to support Debra because this blog can be a lot of fun.

  23. To use the Craigslist example, when you want to post a comment there, it not only asks for your email address but it asks you to type in the letters from a graphic. This is good way to make sure it’s a real person posting and not some computer-generated spam. The site also sends your comment to your email addy for confirmation that it’s really you posting the comment. It hasn’t seemed to affect the volume of posts there as far as I can tell.

  25. “thread 99”, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. Pretty tame for the net.
    But if they want to lay down the rules, do it.
    This right vs. left has to be very boring to the average folk.
    Nice debate hasn’t been a part of public life for a very long time. The posts on this board just reflect this reality. We would all be much happier if we were not so aggresive.

  29. Maybe I’m naive but I do believe it’s possible to have a civilized debate about politics, religion, whatever. It’s when it deteriorates into name calling and personal attacks that it gets ugly. But I do have to say that most of the time, people do exercise self control on Baristanet.

  33. MyManMisterC, I contend that Americans are too agressive. IMHO, we need to stand down.
    I just came back from Toronto, Canada… (I can feel the jokes coming….) and I observered such a lack of aggression. (…I guess that would be called being gentle…) It was nice. There wasn’t a part of the city you couldn’t go to. Crime, business, poltics, war, its “winner take all” in America. We need to pull it down a couple of notches.

  34. Going to take a shot at an avatar now!
    Couldn’t do it. I stink.
    MyManMisterC
    I hadn’t heard about the Montclair Adult School’s Poker tournament. Could you post a link to the details or email me the url. My email address here is real. Thanks in advance.

  36. I agree with you in general, Miss Martta, but I must say that the whole tone has edged downward since we lost ROC and cathar. For all their faults, they generally kept the level of debate pretty high–sometimes very high indeed–and they had enough presence, both in terms of volume of posts and intellect, to bring the rest of us up with them. I know there are some people (Marshall, Butch) who feel otherwise, and Lord knows I’ve had my moments of utter frustration with both of them, but without them this place loses a whole lot of magic. If I knew what would bring them back, I’d do it.

  37. For the privilege of posting and keeping up on my neighborhood I would gladly register for this site. I like the idea of some accountability, and getting rid of multiple name posters (they haunt nj.com too, sometimes arguing with themselves)

  43. It is a shame that left vs. right erupts into a nasty fight every time on this sight. I can tell you that as an independant–I learn a lot from the posts. Mostly that it’s a lost cause for the two sides to see the others point of view. Same goes for our elected officials–this petty nastiness and namecalling results in ineffective governing.
    What would happen if we had a three party system? Left, right and the common-sence in-between?

  44. Blah blah blah. Let’s lament the decline of civil discourse in these so trying times. Why can’t we all just come together and implement common-sense solutions???
    Cut the crap–George Bush is the man responsible for nastiness, he who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is pro-Saddam or liberal elitist or something. He, and all Republicans, are simply liars on a basic level and including them in a discussion that pertains in any way to reality amounts to a paradox.

  45. I agree with Marshall. I like to read, and sometimes engage in a good debate. I’ve been reading through some of the archives, I was never involved in Cathar’s discussions, so I can only offer an outsider’s view. That being said, in my opinion, most of Cathar’s statements were culled from classic right wing talking points. When his statements were refuted, he generally resorted to name calling. I don’t remember all of the poster’s names, but I do remember him attacking butch.
    A good debate is a great thing, and debating requires research and the willingness to continually back up statements.
    Of course, I could be totally wrong. Skimming archives to get a feel for the barista community can be a bit daunting.

  46. (He, and all Republicans, are simply liars on a basic level and including them in a discussion that pertains in any way to reality amounts to a paradox.)
    What an ignorant statement. And I’m not a Republican.

  47. The barista said “We don’t want to have to vet comments, ban commenters or make users register, but we will if we have to.”
    I love it, sounds just like The Watercooler- why post here- when it’s all over there? see ya barista..I’m off to the ‘cooler, where the rules are in writing and you know where you stand.

  48. As one of the apparently “bad” posters from thread99, I’d like to say that I attempted to engage in a legitimate debate over a poster’s statement and it was taken as a personal attack. There was, however, a threat of violence made against another poster and it was made by someone posting under his real name using his employer’s e-mail.
    There are legitimate reasons to post anonymously on this board. It’s not possible to protect your privacy any other way when you post here. Frankly, I’m always amazed that some here, cathar in particular, had no qualms about spewing the most vicious personal attacks at anyone he perceived to be left of attila the hun, all the while posting under his real identity. As much as you’d like to think that you’re in a little Montclair bubble here, it’s still the internet and it can be viewed world wide. It’s extremely easy to track down a home address, phone number, employer, etc. by googling an e-mail address.
    I would welcome a registration process that would protect a poster’s privacy. Until that happens, I will continue posting under a pseudonym and a munged e-mail address.

  49. Yeah, well, I never said he was a saint.
    I admire your pluck, Marshall, and I share your feelings about George W. I wonder though if you really want to call “all Republicans” liars. That way lies madness, or at least irrelevance.

  51. Well, needless to say in my daily life I don’t actually treat Republicans that way, but my basic feeling is: you can’t believe what they believe–especially at it relates to reality in Bush’s world–and be a truthful person. That pernicious man demands that his minions abdicate their humanity in some small, but meaningful, way.

  52. munge
    /muhnj/ 1. A derogatory term meaning to imperfectly transform information.
    2. A comprehensive rewrite of a routine, data structure or the whole program.
    It’s an now archaic usenet term. It refers altering your e-mail address to avoid spam.

  53. I agree with the posting about an earlier posting:
    “For the privilege of posting and keeping up on my neighborhood I would gladly register for this site. I like the idea of some accountability, and getting rid of multiple name posters.”
    I would gladly comply with such a Barista Policy —
    I choose to remain anonymous for fear of the e-mails I would recieve – –
    Having a system of poster accountability would go a long way in alleviating this fear.

  54. If you wanna post somewhere where you have to confirm your email address, there’s the Montclair UnMod group. For the most part, I think everyone has one name on here (some are anonymous, but consistent with one name at least) but there will always be those who have more than one, even on Craigslist or another forum. And, just because someone has to register with an address doesn’t mean it’d confirm who they are (after all, it takes 2 seconds to sign up with a yahoo email, etc.)
    I looked through the comments yesterday and I’ve seen much worse…especially back in the days when we were with ROC/Cathar-itis. I know plenty of people who left the site simply b/c of those two, but maybe they’ll make their way back now that it’s a bit more civil and welcoming. At least now there’s no one systematically bashing, nor stalking, people! It’d be good to have more people posting here – more people with something to say, rather than just wanting to stalk people and provoke them.
    The reality is that this is an INTERNET SITE. It’ll never be perfect and it’s not the end of the world if it gets nasty. Just skip the posts if you think they’re from a troll.
    Now – I still wanna know whose picture that is!?

  55. mazie – true about the privacy thing. there have been at least two occasions where a person posted another posters place of employment and real name, etc.

  57. (…but I must say that the whole tone has edged downward since we lost ROC and cathar. For all their faults, they generally kept the level of debate pretty high….but without them this place loses a whole lot of magic. If I knew what would bring them back, I’d do it.)
    I agree. And I didn’t agree with them a lot of the time, either.
    Frankly, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And there have been plenty of times that others (including some who have posted in this thread), myself included, who have resorted emotional postings, that may have verged on getting personal & name calling.
    I guess when posters referred to the ‘gang of three’ they meant ROC & cathar. Congratulations, two are gone…now pray tell, who is the third?

  58. “At least now there’s no one systematically bashing, nor stalking, people!”
    I wouldn’t be too sure of that!

  60. As a veteran of several online communities, I have to say that I’ve seen each one go through a phase similar to what’s happening here, and it didn’t matter a whit how stringent the registration requirements were. There seems to be something endemic to this form of communication – not to mention human nature – that almost guarantees a spat of flamethrowing at a certain point.
    Registration can make it easier to get rid of the most blatant offenders, but I think that it has little impact on the evolution of an online community. These phases pass, the trolls move on, the folks who have something at stake in maintaining a particular community & who know how to be civil stick around, and ultimately the community becomes a better place. I’ve seen that happen too.
    Having to deal with the chores of being a registrar & a moderator could become a pain in the butt for the Barista, and for that reason I hope it doesn’t prove necessary, but if it does, no problem for me.
    Whoa! The cat just got into my meth, gotta run. ;=)

  61. Pam,
    Thanks for your sane words. I am one of the proud conservative republican posters and like you I have no problem with the range of opinions expressed as long as it’s not personal.. That’s the fun of political discourse on a blog. Look, I disagree with most everything LaserMike026 says (in fact I spend too much time getting pissed off about his opinions) but whenever I write a response I look forward to his response. He is passionate, visceral and angry but he doesn’t get nasty. Let’s get it on and have fun.

  62. John L: I could not have said it any better. I enjoy the “back and forth” banter. But I do take offense at the personal attacks or efforts to “blackball” me as was evidenced today. As you know, I’ve disagreed with many posters on this blog but I never attacked anyone personally or called people names. I never insukted anyone’s mother. I certainly never googled anyone to try and find dirt on them. (Which by the way, in my case, turned out to be bogus). Attack my opinions all you want, bring it on! But leave the personal stuff out of it.

  63. Hey Guys,
    Ok I got curious, and just re-read the thread of vitriol. I noticed that it was “voice in the wilderness” who seemed to really take things in a new, blunter, nastier direction. My first gut feeling was, because of the timing – this new poster appearing so soon after Cathar left – that it *was* Cathar trying on a new idenity. I checked the email address, and typed it into google, couldn’t really get anything, then tried it without the name, just the “@” (“at” extension) — sorry I don’t know the lingo — and came up with a posting that Cathar, using his real name + that extension, had made to some guest book. Hmmm…what do you all think?
    This is my 1st online community, and it’s fascinating, often fun…this bumpy patch is fascinating as well. You keep ’em in line, Barista. Registering would be fine. I’d probably create a separate email account just for posting.

  64. I’ve gotta say that one needs to catch up on mind boggling banter when one attends a HS “Back To School Night”. Perhaps next year I’ll stay home so I don’t miss anything.
    I know I’m not a huge contributor here but I’ve never been adverse to including my real email addy. And I’d be glad to accomodate any request that Baristanet has (regarding sign-up & sign-in) because I LIKE THIS PLACE (and *don’t talk politics*). I prefer to talk *tomatoes*.

  65. I have an idea: Repair the ratio of national political stories to local, newsy stuff. In other words, decrease the dateline Washington DC items & get back to geese and accidents and art festivals and stores opening/closing and local schools — it’s far too easy to get sucked into arguments about FEMA and protests in DC when, in reality, what initially drew a lot of your readers to Baristanet was the local flavor.
    Or, how about this one: have a separate politics page or forum. You have distinct pages for real estate and food — why not relegate the bulk of the political coverage to another spot. You could then highlight a feature now and again on the main page (as you do with real estate and food).
    /just sayin’

  66. I don’t understand, Butch was called a ” pea-brained whimperer” and this ws also said “she really is a complete idiot who barely stands above her fellow idiots on this site”.
    The Barista apologises to JMo because some one said that he was making money off the war by covering it. JMo then characterises the claim as calling him a “war profiteer”. Personally, I don’t think that’s what was being said and found JMo’s statement to put even more fuel on the fire.
    If your gonna apologise to JMo, shouldn’t Butch get an apology too?

  68. Guys, I disagree with both the some of the left and some of the right posters on this board! What does that make me???
    But I have never used a pseudonym or a fake email address. If you have the backbone to post here, you should have the backbone to do so with a real email address. I am all for registration.
    Oh, and one more thing, while I may not agree with John L or Martta on a lot of issues, I appreciate the back and forth commentary with them. Same with Franklin and Butch. I think I most often agree with Walleroo. I would be unhappy to see any of them go. (Though, to be fair, I was pleased as punch to be done with the supercilious smugness of Cathar).
    The ad hominem attacks really are uncalled for–grow up, ya’ll.

  69. >> I noticed that it was “voice in the wilderness” who seemed to really take things in a new, blunter, nastier direction. My first gut feeling was, because of the timing – this new poster appearing so soon after Cathar left – that it *was* Cathar trying on a new idenity.

  70. “Guys, I disagree with both the some of the left and some of the right posters on this board! What does that make me???
    But I have never used a pseudonym or a fake email address. If you have the backbone to post here, you should have the backbone to do so with a real email address. I am all for registration.
    …..”
    Posted by: daniella | Sep 30, 2005
    Thank you Daniella, on all your points. I also post under my real name, and real email address. Do you really think someone’s going to track you down and do personal harm from a posting?
    You’re watching too much “Law and Order”!
    I strongly resist responding to someone who is, in effect, wearing a mask. It’s surely part of why there is so much nastiness here, which turns off so many of us who might take part more often.
    Do you think posters like “Cathar” and “ROC” would have the nerve to speak that way to people if they had to be responsible for their statements?

  72. ROC and cathar never tried very hard to conceal their true identities–a few seconds of research will uncover them. And nobody (I think) knows who I am, though I post under a real email address (and a real animal). And though I have no special knowledge, I doubt bet my eye teeth that cathar and ROC are different people, and that neither is posting under psyeudonyms–at least not cathar, whose writing style is very different from anything else that appears here and would be difficult to cover up. I must object, too, to the reference to trolls passing on… I’d give 1000 voices in the wilderness for one ROC.

  73. What a shame.
    Yes, Cathar and ROC are welcome here, as we all should be!
    And I doubt that any registration process would make a difference to those who insist on mouthing off.
    My advice (and the same advice I give to my kids for their web blogs) -especially important when a heated conversation is brewing – is to make a draft of everything you’re thinking (or use the preview!)- walk away from the computer and, only after reviewing what you’ve written should you actually hit post. Of course spontaneity is a “spice” but that’s why I say to go ahead and write down what you’re thinking – just don’t post it that instant!
    Remember, this is the internet – this is a permanent record of you and your thoughts – make it a positive view of yourself and your ideas that you won’t be ashamed to read again and again.

  74. jerseygrrrrl – that wasn’t the first time i had been insulted! cathar lived to insult every single person on this site, yet Barista never apologized for him or worried about him scaring off posters. But, aside from a couple of folks, most people couldn’t stand him and many boycotted the site because of him.
    Skippy, you’re exactly right. As I said in that thread “gee, cathar is gone and someone else shows up insulting m intelligence – who could this be.” It was Cathar, predictably. (Trolls can’t resist coming back!)
    Voice in the Wilderness posted as “dmon@dmcdonald.com” – Cathar posted as “rszathmary@juno.com”. If you google “rszathmary” or “dmcdonald” – you’ll find the two have been posted together (i.e. “rszathmary@dmcdonald.com”) on other internet message boards.

  75. “ROC and cathar never tried very hard to conceal their true identities–a few seconds of research will uncover them.”
    Yes, that’s true, and it’s why when I typed that email extension for VITW, “mcdondald.com”, w/o the “dmon” (demon?) in front of it into Google, my stomach did a little flip flop when I recognized a posting with Cathar’s real name attached to it.
    As someone mentioned not long ago, “aw, this is no fun without Cathar and ROC”. Didn’t pay much attention to ROC, but Cathar’s posts were interesting and well-written (a little verbose). But another reason I found his posts interesting is that there was something sometimes a little…off about them, the angry edge and subtext of neediness. So I could see him posting under a new name and trying out a new voice. It’s just a nagging feeling that I have, and am probably not articulating all that well.
    Walleroo, I consistently enjoy your posts! Also, off the top of my head, mymanmisterC and butch. And Miss Martta, although I don’t agree with you all that often, I find you very likeable.
    Barista world in general is an engaging place.

  76. ROC had several identities on other boards…and, his “richard o’colgan” “real name” was also made up.
    As for cathar – I think he’s wise enough to fake his writing style. Perhaps he just stopped using google to fluff up his posts for an afternoon.

  77. Tell me skippy, if you saw someone post under @yahoo.com or @ieee.org, would you immediatly assume that it was me posting under a different name?
    Besides, who cares? If you are really that curiuos, why don’t you just send him an e-mail and ask instead of speculating?
    I find this cyberstalking creepy.

  79. “Tell me skippy, if you saw someone post under @yahoo.com or @ieee.org, would you immediatly assume that it was me posting under a different name?”
    I’m not exactly sure what you mean. You *are* posting under “@yahoo.com” and so am I. And no, it wouldn’t be an immediate assumption. There were other factors – timing and tone.

  80. i guess it’s just a coincendence? there are TWO “rszathmary” out there who both post on Baristanet and both post in similar styles?

  81. “I find this cyberstalking creepy.”
    Yeah, it IS a bit unnerving, as I have been victimized in the same way myself. The irony here is that the person who stalked me would probably cry “Foul!” if she was on the receiving end of it, especially if it was a result of the U.S. Patriot Act.

  82. Butch, I see your mind working along a certain track like a jeep in a rutted dirt road. I suppose the conclusion that more than one person in the universe would ever insult your intelligence is taboo to your thinking. Cathar isn’t an angel, but he’s also not a troll. I find the spectacle of you trying to ostracize him on this site the worst form of bullying and manipulation — mob behavior, really. This makes your insinuation that cathar is using the device of posting under different names ironic, and perhaps hypocritcal.

  83. I would suggest that if a poster feels “victimized” by
    information readily accessible by a quick google search, he or she should refrain from posting personal information and photos to sites on the internet.

  84. “i guess it’s just a coincendence? there are TWO “rszathmary” out there who both post on Baristanet and both post in similar styles?”
    VITW did not post as “rszathmary” nor did skippy say that he did. Please check your facts before posting.

  85. Edna: I’m sure someone could find stuff out about you, too, if he or she wanted. However, since you smugly choose to post under an alias, you’ve been able to shield yourself from such a search, at least on Baristanet.
    Maybe I’m wrong but I’m not so sure you’d like your pharmaceutical purchases or library books common knowledge.

  86. That’s my point martta. I have taken the necessary steps to insure, to the best of my ability, that my personal information is kept personal.
    My name and email addy are real, I choose not to “flash my rack” so to speak.

  87. But isn’t it a leap to go from things that come up from typing searchwords into Google to electronic records involving personal transactions that are stored in firewalled, passworded databases? If Edna posted here under her real name it wouldn’t be a slippery slope inexorably leading to her prescription history and library checkouts making the email rounds like a gang initiation warning.
    And even if her library records were retrieved by law enforcement under the Patriotic Act, those doing the retrieving would not then make them “common knowledge”.

  88. “And even if her library records were retrieved by law enforcement under the Patriotic Act, those doing the retrieving would not then make them ‘common knowledge.'”
    We hope that, yes. But there are always those with hidden (and not-so-hidden agendas). The names G. Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt come to mind and their attempt to find dirt on Daniel Ellsberg.
    Just because you can do something, doesn’t make it right. I am still perplexed at the motives behind her actions, however.

  89. I should add that I have Googled people myself. But I would not post the results of my search elsewhere without that person’s consent. There’s something unsettling about that.

  90. another thought: they say “good fences make good neighbors”, and I think having online names can be like those good fences. The online names can function like social boundaries that allow us to interact without breathing down each other’s necks too much. The downside is when people feel emboldened to “shout” or play mindgames, but the majority of posters don’t do that.

  91. As I’ve posted before, over and over again, my only motive for doing a quick, simple google search, as many of us do, as evidenced by this thread, was to point out the hypocrisy in your “personal attacks” statement. You posted back that the post I found was made by an imposter, and I suggested that you contact your ISP to look into the matter.
    I know who you are martta, and I’m not out to get you.
    I believe this whole thing started when I expressed an opinion on another poster’s request that you back up your politically charged statements.
    You accused that poster of personally attacking you.

  93. LOL…are we keeping you up, John L? I’m with you, I am psychically and mentally tired of all this. The bottom line is that there will always be other people who dislike us for whatever reason. You can’t expect everyone to love you. I know who are my true friends are and for that, I am grateful.

  94. Martin wrote:
    “Do you really think someone’s going to track you down and do personal harm from a posting?”
    Richard Szathmary, a/k/a Cathar a/k/a voice in the wilderness, threatened violence against another poster. It was not the first time Mr. Szathmary has used the threat of physical violence and intimidation in a post. When he gets backed up against a wall, he gets particularly nasty. I find it incredible that someone would risk their job by using an employer’s e-mail address to post that threat. This is the individual that’s raising the level of discourse here? You’ve got to be kidding.
    So, Martin, my answer to you is: it’s not a chance I’m willing to take. I’m sorry, but cathar seems a brick or two shy of a full load.

  95. Martta – your truest friends are probably those Labs!
    Mazie – I agree. But, really, we should move on and end this thread. Too much attention is being given to the guy, even though he’s no longer here. We’re free, let’s just enjoy it while it’s relatively quiet. There are other interesting discussions going on.
    Martin – Welcome back!!

  96. I’ve really stopped reading this site as often and with as much pleasure as I used to. It used to be informative, intelligent and oftentimes satirical. Lately, it’s been gossipy, trite and often borderline racist.
    I think the quality of the journalism has given way to inversely proportional levels of elitism and a condescending tone that really alienates me as someone who’s NOT a rich ex-NY Times reporter living in the “good” section of town.
    I still check in here once in a while to see if things have improved, but sadly, they just keep going downhill.

  97. “Martta – your truest friends are probably those Labs!”
    You’re probably right. The dogs have gotten me through worse times than this.

  98. “I’m sorry, but cathar seems a brick or two shy of a full load.”
    The guy isn’t here to defend himself so it’s easy to cast stones. I, for one, enjoyed reading his posts. I didn’t always agree with the man but I think he expressed himself rather cogently, intelligently and often humorously. This blog feels a bit off-kilter now that’s he gone.

  100. regardless of all of you words–i hear the sound of music from the shower scene in psycho since Edna’s arrival-that person started this…the whole thing was unecessary
    all that should have been said was you didn’t back up your post

  101. ROC pretty much ran me out of town.
    He or she would bash me even when I wasn’t around. He hated because I questioned some of the Montclair Mayor’s actions and the motives behind those actions.
    I was one step from finding ROC’s true identity. I thought it would be interesting to learn who was such a big supporter of the Mayor. I lost interest in the mystery of ROC when my kid was born.
    I hope Baristanet.com stays the way it is.
    Garrett Morrison

  102. Just think about it. Our whole world is sitting there on a computer. It’s in the computer, everything: your, your DMV records, your, your social security, your credit cards, your medical records. It’s all right there. Everyone is stored in there. It’s like this little electronic shadow on each and everyone of us, just, just begging for someone to screw with, and you know what? They’ve done it to me, and you know what? They’re gonna do it to you

  103. these are two posts from ‘voice in the wilderness,’ whomever he or she may be, in which i was singled out for an insult or namecalling. i don’t believe in censorship, but i found these remarks hurtful. if someone wishes to say this about me that is their right, however, i will be posting less because i felt very vulnerable after reading these remarks. if this represents the elevated level of posting some were hoping to invite back to the board, i certainly wish the best of luck to all involved but i personally was very hurt by it.
    *******
    >>”After more than a year of just reading her pathetic attempts at political commentary, I know better. She never makes sense. And she really is a complete idiot who barely stands above her fellow idiots on this site, like you, ready Freddie. Ouch back!
    Posted by: voice in the wilderness | Sep 28, 2005 9:57:09 AM
    The only way such notoriously dumb lefties as Fran, butch, ready Freddie and Franklin have three digits in their iq’s is if their scores are tallied jointly.
    As for the “ad hominem” attacks (I don’t know what the phrase means, nor probably does someone like butch or Fran), I have read for more than a year how freely leftwing posters indulge in name calling. And taunting. And anonymity. But they don’t like it when fire is returned. It only makes them snivel all the more.
    As for flipping there, Fredhead, I’d be more likely to flip you. Right over on your fat, smug back should we ever meet.
    Posted by: voice in the wilderness | Sep 28, 2005 12:28:42 PM”

  104. To end the incessant speculation, voice in the wilderness is not cathar. We are able to check these things and we have. Perhaps we can all move on and put any hurt feelings aside, and move on to a new thread. Thanks — and if anyone has questions, please e-mail them at tips rather than continue to fan flames by playing detective. I don’t think it makes it comfortable for anyone — even those who no longer post here — to be continually mentioned.

  106. JERSEY GIRL WROTE – The Barista apologises to JMo because some one said that he was making money off the war by covering it. JMo then characterises the claim as calling him a “war profiteer”. Personally, I don’t think that’s what was being said and found JMo’s statement to put even more fuel on the fire.
    I made the accusation. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that jmo and his company were profiting off the middle east in general. Not directly from the war but indirectly. One of the reasons our boys are fighting and being killed over there is for u.s. business interests. The easy money over there has its costs in american lives. I did not know he was covering the middle east as a journalist. I apologize to jmo for accusing him of being part of the problem. I fully support the president. I support the war. I support our troops. We have to fight them there so we do not have to fight them here. A democracy in the middle east will solve the problem. But. We would not have to lose our boys over there if we did not have u.s. companies doing business over there. The u.s. companies doing business over there do lack integrity.

  107. Sebastian – your argument makes no sense? You support the president, the war, and the troops – yet, also think that the reason our “boys” (i guess girls don’t matter) are dying is because of “u.s. business interests.”
    Isn’t that rather contradictory?

  108. I do not like going to war. But we had to wage the war on terror in this case. I partially fault u.s. business men for having to fight this one. They support dysfunctional middle east regimes by doing business in the region. We do not do business with cuba. You do not have to be head of class to know that we would never go to war with a useless nonstrategic poor country. I would not support war in that case. We are fighting terror. We are securing oil. We are setting up a democracy in the middle east. We are fighting for u.s. business interest. I would feel guilty if i were doing business in the middle east. I would be part of the reason americans are dying.

  109. I think its a great idea for the people to register with their real e-mail information.If a person name and other information related to that guy have to enter,then i think spam can be stopped to some extent atleast.

Comments are closed.