Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[Bux]

I should add that Bux's last post was extremely gracious.

Personally, I think everyone should add that to all their posts.

I didn't see an icon face with that, so I'll take your comment at face value. I try very hard to be gracious. Friends tell me I have to because I'm such a sarcastic s.o.b. at heart.

My intention was to point out that there are positive ways to support a cause and positive ways to react to criticism, no matter how unjust it may seem. Fat Guy deserves more than a little credit for pointing out that your respect for the site has been amply demonstrated by the sheer number of your posts as well as by the fact that the only living journalist who has written two articles about eGullet! Your actions speak louder than your words.

[Steve Klc]

I wonder if Bill Clinton felt the same way about Matt Drudge.

[Jason Perlow]

I dont have any interns doing creative things with cigars, though.

[Jaymes]

I dont have any interns doing creative things with cigars, though.

Carrots, perhaps? In keeping with the food theme?

[John Whiting]

(John Whiting @ Jul 21 2002, 10:47 AM)

I should add that Bux's last post was extremely gracious.

Personally, I think everyone should add that to all their posts.

When applicable, of course.

I didn't see an icon face with that, so I'll take your comment at face value.

I'm giving up emoticons. They're a cheap way of avoiding precision. From now on, if someone reacts personally to a general comment, my unwritten reply, in the words of an old Berkeley friend, is "If the shoe fits, then cram it up your ass!" (That's my last emoticon.)

[Jaymes]

in the words of an old Berkeley friend, is "If the shoe fits, then cram it up your ass!"

I just love it when you talk dirty.

(Cassoulet in the Autumn?)

[John Whiting]

(Cassoulet in the Autumn?)

Make it the fall.

[Jaymes]

(Cassoulet in the Autumn?)

Make it the fall.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Isn't this just a troll post that we're supposed to ignore?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually I have something to raise here that has nothing to do with the article but has something to do with John's participation on eGullet and what I see as an ethical cloud over his head. I don't know of a single writer or reporter who when working on an article where he is speaking directly with the people who are going to be written about or quoted, when the writer didn't disclose their intention. Yet here we have had two instances where John participated in conversations, and even played a major part in helping shape the the tone and direction of those conversation where he intended on writing about them and yet he didn't disclose it in either instance. In my 20+ years of being in the media busines, I can't think of an occassion where I was interacting with someone who was writing an article where they didn't disclose it to me.

My gut tells me there is something wrong with someone participating on the board if he intends to use the conversations for his own fodder and is not participating in earnest. When I post here, I do so for the benefit of the board. I do not participate for John's self-aggrandisement because he likes to fancy himself a food writer. Then there is the issue of the integrity of the article. Had certain people been asked to respond to the various allegations the article makes, we could have put forth facts that might have changed it in material ways. But of course when one looks at it that way, one can see the motivation not to disclose. In fact, the *facts* can be a real impediment in getting the story out the way you want it to be told.

[LaNiña]

"The membership numbers among its company an elite of big spenders with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the world’s most expensive restaurants, to which they return with a regularity no mere food writer could afford unless his name was Jeffrey Steingarten."

Since this is a "professional" piece of writing, I feel free to point out that the correct grammar here is "...unless his name WERE Jeffrey Steingarden." It's conditional.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, I disagree with Whiting's opinions as much as you do, but since I'd rather see this thread die a peaceful death than develop into a flame war let me step in with two comments: 1) I don't see this as an elaborate setup -- I am not convinced that Whiting was baiting anybody specifically for the purposes of writing an article about it -- and therefore I see no violation of any code of journalistic ethics. In addition, we are all posting here with the full knowledge that we're publishing our comments in a public place. That's entirely different than a situation where a journalist might decide to report on private conversations, in which case I do believe disclosure is required absent a compelling justification. 2) Whiting followed the accepted protocols by coming to me with questions prior to publication. I made some comments on the few factually oriented statements he wanted to make, and he accepted factual input from me. With regard to his opinions, which I think constitute 99% of this piece, I told him I disagreed but that he of course has the right to any opinion he wants to hold -- and he has the right to write it. And we have the right to bash him, but I'd rather we just let it drop as you so sagely suggested in your previous post.

[John Whiting]

Steve, thank you for acknowledging your prior editing, which I never would have referred to without your prompting.

As to "was/were", I consciously chose the slangy alternative as part of the long sentence's sudden bump down to the ironic. (Those who can write will know what I mean.)

[LaNiña]

How nice of you to choose the incorrect and ungrammatical so us plain folks can jive on your "slangy alternative."

Please quote a legitimate, respected source which gives "was" as a correct, grammatical alternative to "were" in the conditional. And don't tell me that the use of "was" is slang. It's simply bad grammar.

Note: my grammar may not be consistently perfect, but I'm not the one who generally feels it's my responsibility to correct other people's grammar. No, that's you.

[John Whiting]

I note that the Ancient Mariner is back and gunning for another albatross. I vow never to stop by the wayside for another of the Plotter’s labyrinthine logic-chopping monologs. That should give me time to finish writing my novel.

That covers all the bases. Roger, over and out.

[spicegirl]

For someone lurking on the sides, your piece is very encouraging.

I felt I should speak up, since the others that have spoken on this page have done exactly what you talk about them doing on other topics.

Even as they belittle your beautiful writing, your generous tone in even slamming a hateful lot will be noticed by any and all that understand English as we learned from those that knew the English language and do not understand or speak American.

As a native of Pakistan and a citizen of the US, I owe more to the English than to the US for who I am thus far. I give more to the US than I do to Pakistan even. For I live here and work here and pay my dues here.

Thanks Mr. Whiting for your piece. I am smiling as I write this for I see your piece come alive with the cheap manner in which the members and also the owners of the site have bashed you for doing your work as a writer. They have made alive every word you wrote which was meant to showcase their faults. And the good work, that you mention as taking place in less visible boards and ethnic corners continues but without any major splash.

What you did not share with us was how any of us can get a copy of what was edited and printed in that newsletter. What does it take to subscribe to it? Is it a closed group? I am guessing it is a very powerful group or else the owner of this site and the partners would not bash a journalist in such crass manner.

I was silent as a couple of members asked for the death of Moslems. I was afraid that I was a minority and so did not have much ground to create any stir. Those that differed from their hate of Moslems were banned from posting and or suspended. All of this has made me stay silent. And now I see that the owner of the site is asking for you to be shot. Shocking that even the owner did not learn any lesson from that fateful topic you were made to report about. What are these members and owners bashing you for? There is much they should do to at least have one voice. Why should they have a double standard for deleting posts from members that seem that foolish as Jason Perlows post above? What makes him worthy of killing others even in just words but not give others to fend for the rights of those religious minorities that a couple of men on thsi web site are asking to be killed and erased? Your article seems as relevant today as it was when you were first asked to report it, since nothing seems to havve changed yet. The mad men are still working... They are killing in other more subtle but just as vicious ways. Most of us remain silent for we fear being bashed as well. Not only by the ego-maniacs you mention, but now it is evident that even the owner of the site will join in a crass show of power and madness.

Maybe your article and the topic in which you posted it will have your newsletter people do another story. For your article may need editing to showcase what the mood is today.

[John Whiting]

Spicegirl - That was a very kind and well-meaning letter, but I fear you don't know enough of the history that lies behind what you write. It would be best for you if you don't respond to the vituperation which will now be heaped on you. I apologize in advance for not coming further to your defence -- it's road that has been travelled before and it leads straight over a cliff.

[LaNiña]

TROLL ALERT.

[John Whiting]

I've privately communicated by PM with spicegirl -- I've no idea who she is -- and urged her not to respond to whatever comes next. Regardless of its motivation, the TROLL ALERT should be observed. I would hope that Nina and I are agreed on this.

[spicegirl]

Mr. Whiting,

May I call you that? In our country, we often will call people that seem older than us by a decade or so by a honorific. It makes us more comfortable.

Sir, I am not afraid of being taken against a cliff or being thrown off it. I have had many people do several nasty things to me and my family and friends from Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and India since 9/11. It is a part of what we are. We are bashed for we look like terrorists. Even when we are women.

At least online these hateful members and the owners that seem to enjoy silencing Muslims will not be able to hit me. I have been hit and assaulted in the streets and have had a friend of the family lose his eye to hooligans who beat him up for he looked Arab. Whatever that is meant tobe.

I knew the thread you spoke about. It was a thread meant to bash the French, then bash the Arabs and then used to Kill all Muslims. It did not need a brain surgeon to share what some members wanted to do. They corrupted the meaning of Anti-Semitism to suit their needs. They bashed a country whose chefs they worship on every other article on this website. They have hypocritical and double standards that are evident in their crass ways of worshipping money and bashing those that are above that greed. I knew the thread to be hateful and when I saw a partner of the website join in, I was afraid that this persons being from a country that some in the US think of as Arabic as well would get himinto trouble. Well, it did. This partner was stripped of his power by the other owners and silenced till they realized how his part of t he website was critical and much appreciated.

I know what agendas people have. And they know them as well. Being customers at fine restaurants cannot elevate ones spiritual understanding of life. It can often only mask the crises that are trying to hide.

I see how many new members get censored even before they are able to share their unique experiences on egullet. But I am not afraid to be one of those. By silencing me they can lose the voice of difference, but they cannot erase my thoughts. They may perpetuate the hatred that is supported by the owners by their endorsing some by silence and censoring others for they do not like to hear what is said by those few. It is a game that is unfair.. but is certainly being played here. I come from a country where our politicians have had to play that game with America for we have no money, and America does not want peace in our part of the world. As and when they choose to topple a governement and destablize us, they do so. In the end, they do no good for my people and have done little good for their own. They make our poor hungry, train them to be terrorists to kill the innocets of our neighbors and wake up to the ugliness when these mad people they train, start to go after them.

I know the ugly world. Mr. Whiting, do not feel the need to defend me. Your writing defens me and my people. That is a great thing you did for my people. But thanks for warning me of these mad people. I fear Jason Perlow shooting me even before you. But I fear more how he will ever escape hiding the fact that he called for y ou to be shot in response to your article sharing such madness in the first place. Maybe someone at your newsgroup can do a piece on that sad occurence. It is ironical that he make a ugly statement like that after a article that reported on something just as ugly. Maybe he wants to bring his site bad publicity for he really does believe that even bad press is good press.

[LaNiña]

I note that the Ancient Mariner is back and gunning for another albatross. I vow never to stop by the wayside for another of the Plotter’s labyrinthine logic-chopping monologs. That should give me time to finish writing my novel.

That covers all the bases. Roger, over and out.

I'm gunning for no such thing. Just remember this next time you decide it's your responsibility to correct someone else's grammar.

[spicegirl]

And what were you actually trying to do Mrs.Nina. From your anger and hate it is apparent y ou are much older than my mother.

Some older people get angry and upset easily.

I guess Mr. Whiting must have a temper too. Maybe you can find some comfort in knowing that life gets easy when we do not take everything personally.

I know y ou were mourning the absence of your best friend on this website. But they are back. Maybe you can actually get married to him and each of you can be happier people.

It willbe great to have you share with us your happy thoughts and not the anger that comes along with it.

Mr. Plotnickee writes nicely and long, but never says good things about those he cannot understand.

Maybe when you are married, he will find happiness in knowing that life can change when people are happy.

[Jinmyo]

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - I'm not complaining about the article and I don't want to start a new thread just about John Whiting. Besides, it's just like any other article that is written from a slanted point of view. John and the FWG are entitled to their editorial slant. But I do think that John and his editor understand what the ethics of reporting are all about and I feel the lack of disclosure is purposeful. I don't know of a writer in the land who would not disclose their intent. And I don't know of an editor who would publish something knowing there wasn't full disclosure. The disclosure to you isn't sufficient. Disclosure means full disclosure.

Many things in the article might have come out differently had their been full disclosure. For example, John makes a point that he waited until Suvir returned to write the piece. Well had he fully disclosed his intent, maybe I would have come forward with what I know about Suvir from management. And maybe I would have offered the private messages and emails I have from various posters stating their feelings about Suvir. What he would have found is that people who thought Suvir was either anti-Semitic and mentally unstable shared no single religion or economic class. They were just appaled at his inappropriate behavior. Which I must add he apologized for which is another thing John's article conveniently overlooks as it doesn't attempt to ferret out why he apologized.

Fat Guy I know you want this thread to die but it really shouldn't until everybody understands that John Whiting, someone who holds himself out as morally superior to everyone else on the board (except Suvir) commited what I see as a serious ethical breach. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair for the people here to be in discussions with him if he isn't making full disclosure as to his intentions. In the future, the site should make a policy that any writer who comes onto the site and intends to write an article about their participation has to disclose it. It's only fair to the people participating. It is clearly a major conflict for any member to be wearing both hats and it is grossly unfair to anyone speaking to that member not to know about it. In fact disclosure would give people the chance not to participate with a member who is using the board for their own selfish purposes, and not for the general enlightenment of the other members who participate in earnest.

I'm quite happy participating here for the benefit of the other members. But I haven't agreed to particpate for the benefit of the Guild of Food Writers. One would think if that organization had any integrity at all, they would notify us about our pending participation in that publication before it happened. After all, that is the standard any other publication would adhere to. To ask them to adhere to it, and to ask John to act with the same level of integrity that a reporter from a daily or monthly would have isn't really asking too much.

I also must add that I am adhereing to the ignore a troll policy in terms of Spice Girl. But I couldn't help but notice that John seems to have good relationships with the various trolls that frequent the board from time to time. In fact at this point, he might be setting the Internet befriend a troll record! I suspect the PM's he is describing contain quite a few supportive messages from various trolls. Fortunately my inbox is troll free.

[Ron Johnson]

Ugh, not again.