Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tommy - I thought I acknowledged you all of the time. It's bad enough I hurt the feelings of Spice Girl and Sweatpea but you too?

You are right regarding your point about the "turn of events." As is Cabrales with her questions. But think how lucky you are. You have been witness to the Stalinization of eGullet's history. Anyone who questions it will be killed off or smeared in the press. So it's best off forgetting it. We'll just have to talk about it amongst ourselves at lunch next week.

[tommy]

Tommy - I thought I acknowledged you all of the time. It's bad enough I hurt the feelings of Spice Girl and Sweatpea but you too?

You are right regarding your point about the "turn of events." As is Cabrales with her questions.  But think how lucky you are. You have been witness to the Stalinization of eGullet's history. Anyone who questions it will be killed off or smeared in the press. So it's best off forgetting it.  We'll just have to talk about it amongst ourselves at lunch next week.

you're effing joking, right? about having lunch with me that is.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I heard you were coming to lunch next week. Is it a different Tommy?

[Aurora]

I went back and forth...post, don't post...post, don't post...I finally ripped the last petal out of the daisy, so here I am.

Perhaps I have been relegated to that ever-so-loving title of Troll, I'm not sure (for goodness sake, don't respond to that; it's not the point), but I am not here for the purpose of praising or criticizing John Whiting.

I do not agree with everything that John stated in his piece, but parts do make me revisit certain observations that struck me when I initially joined eGullet. What I offer is my impression based on what I have experienced as a member of one month and a day.

John’s article reminded me of an instance that occurred when I first joined. One my posts was cavalierly dismissed out-of-hand by someone who later apologized for the comment. On the same thread, matters were taken in an opposite direction by another member who went as far as giving an elongated analysis of why they felt my opinion was wrong. An unreasonable set of criterion was applied to my post, which had not been levied upon any post that came before or after, and the member ended by asking others to offer their thoughts on who, between the two of us, expressed the opinion that was better (no one responded to the call). Did it piss me off? You betcha! What most irritated me was that the thread was of the innocuous "discuss your favorite..." type--anything that was offered in response to the topic was valid and not a matter of factual, "correct" or "incorrect" thinking. Because a select few did not care for my opinion, they felt that they had justification for trashing it. I am of the opinion that the practice serves to diminish discussion rather than elevate it. What I experienced nearly made me turn away after two days, but I put it in sharper perspective. It was disappointing, but I got over it.

Rather than responding in kind, it occurred to me that such an interaction was truly a part of the beauty of the site. I'm sure I have posted things that have not met with great favor just as much as I have read the posts of others who have not delighted me with their commentary. The differences of opinion in the discussions are what keep everything moving--not the agreement. This is true even when the topic dissolves into insipid debates about the use of was and were and an unending diatribe about journalistic "ethical breach" (see what I did there?)

The article has clear importance. It also picks at the scabs of several “resolved” issues that continue to boil beneath the surface. If this were not true, discussion would not continue for five pages (and counting). Love it, hate it, love it in spite of hating it...the replies just keep coming in dissent and all—truly effective PR.

John makes a specific point that is worth closer examination:

There has been some infusion of robust new blood, but how long will these promising new members put up with the clubbiness and the vitriol?

A quick review of the eGullet Member List reveals a significant portion of the membership that posts once or twice never to be heard from again. An even greater majority of members NEVER post. It begs the question of why? Why become a member and not participate? Guests can and do lurk. It’s far easier and clearly more anonymous than lurking as a member. Of course, there are members who are most comfortable as Lurkers, but are they all Lurkers? Could there possibly be promising beneficial voices out there that, just maybe, are turned off before they really get started? If that is true, what makes it true? This would not be nearly as startling if the members in this category numbered in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

Did John hit upon something? Does our own conduct work against us and aid in limiting the expansion of the site?

[Robert Schonfeld]

For journalists who may be following this thread, whether with an eye to a story or not, whether agenda-driven or not, may I direct your attention to another thread, on the subject of historical culinary migration (found here), which, in my opinion, exemplifies one aspect (there are others, to be sure) of the best of which this site is capable. Honest inquiry and earnestness in learning are pursued in a topic with far reaching implications. It is the sort of discussion that makes egullet special. It deserves as much attention as the food fights.

[cabrales]

Aurora -- On the question of whether our own conduct "works against us", my take is that our community is what it is (appreciating it changes over time) and we may indeed not be a good match for every single person who comes in contact with the board. If a new member is suffiiciently interested in the community to post, she becomes empowered to change the course of threads.

As you know, part of John's article addresses an implicit issue regarding the balance of more expensive restaurants reported on the board against other subject matter. The "solution", for those who perceive an imbalance, is for members to post more about a broad range of restaurants. If other members choose not to post, the members who are currently posting about restaurants they choose to post about need not consider an obligation to post about less expensive restaurants they may also visit. As for questions that may be presented to a member posting about a favorite restaurant or a meal experience, that process of inquiry is, in my mind, an integral part of the board.Other members are curious about details. If the member providing the initial description does not wish to respond, she need not (I appreciate a pattern of non-response is unhelpful to continued interaction with others on the board). Or she could furnish a cursory response. As Steve P and others have mentioned in multiple contexts, members can ignore threads that do not interest them. A counterargument might be that the title of a thread may not end up being necessarily indicative of its full contents. But that is a fact of participation in the board. How can a member who does not even take the time to peek into a thread expect that she could absorb everything about a thread by reviewing its title? Such a member should have no legitimate expectation of being party to all discussions on the board.

I appreciate your question, and look forward to other members' input.

[John Whiting]

After being compared to a mother who harms her child for attention I posted a very angry response. (Wouldn’t you?) It has been blocked and will be deleted with my permission. I regret it but I do not apologize.

After a certain amount of abuse, which has been only mildly rebuked, one grows weary. So goodbye. Get on with your lives and I shall get on with mine.

My thanks to those who understood.

[cabrales]

John -- I see significant irony in the apparent deletion of your described post in this thread, relative to the deletion of the entire Neo-Nazi/France thread. When you have a chance, could you discuss whether you see such irony and whether the difference is one of merely the number of posts that need to be deleted, in which case the board could become more vulnerable to trolls who post frequently in a given thread with a view to the thread's deletion?

[rich]

While I realize, the First Amendment doesn't apply internationally, the freedom of speech clause should be in effect here. No posts should be unilaterally blocked from a member in good standing - no one, I repeat no one, should have that kind of absolute power. (And I won't bore anyone with the cliche that follows.)

The danger with so much bashing followed by censorship (many revolutions started over this issue) is an eventual loss of membership and posts. There is a current thread asking why members don't post. This thread is probably a good example.

I long believed, these types of groups lend themselves to "false bravery." People write things because it's easy to "talk" to a screen. They say things that would never be said "face to face." And because the screen is inanimate, meanings get blurred and misinterpreted.

Whether you agree with John's article or not, he certainly had the right to pen and publish it. Everyone should treat everthing written here as "public information." This isn't a private sight, it's completely open.

If you don't want to be quoted, then send your remarks privately. It solves all the problems.

[Wilfrid]

For journalists who may be following this thread, whether with an eye to a story or not, whether agenda-driven or not, may I direct your attention to another thread, on the subject of historical culinary migration (found here), which, in my opinion, exemplifies one aspect (there are others, to be sure) of the best of which this site is capable. Honest inquiry and earnestness in learning are pursued in a topic with far reaching implications. It is the sort of discussion that makes egullet special. It deserves as much attention as the food fights.

Robert, I agree with you, and I hope to contribute further to that thread when I have done some more homework.

Since this thread is rolling inexorably forward, can we cut to the chase? The real issue here is not John's article (we could all pick holes in any article about eGullet), nor the question of disclosure (which is a red herring, as he did diclose he was writing it). The real issue, which is hinted at obliquely, or taken for granted as understood, is just this: within his article, John gave a brief account of the incidents surrounding the French anti-semitism thread and Suvir. Steve Plotnicki, and maybe other members, believe the account was inaccurate. Personally, I have no idea either way.

In the absence of further comment from the moderators, I can see two options:

1. Forget about all this and concentrate on the good things on eGullet.

2. Continue to direct threads in such a way as to put pressure on the moderators to re-open the subject.

I know some people here are going to persist with 2. I could gripe about that, but of course I don't "know" what they claim to "know". All I would ask is that we are honest and open about what the issue is, and that we try to keep it from cluttering up the whole board. And I think we may as well agree that it's the issue itself that's the troll magnet.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well I continue to stand by my original point that the genesis of our problems lay with people feeling that they have the right to make comments about others who post on the site. And John's posting about me earlier today perfectly illustrates this point. It's nothing more than a character assassination, puts words in my mouth and is posted for no other reason than to tar my reputation. It is exactly the same thing that Suvir did on that fateful day. And as I've said earlier, it is what originally caused the trolls to appear and it continues to encourage them to this day.

In this thread I've tried to raise two points about John. Not John as a person, but John as a member. I might stray across that line from time to time, but I try to be careful not to. In this thread I tried to raise two points in response to John's articles.

1. His lack of dicslosure about when he is wearing his member's hat and when he is wearing his writers hat seems somewhat facile.

2. He continually offers personal comments about various members here that include value judgements about how they live their lives. Further to this point, he has used the facility of his member/writer status to go "off the board" and discuss those same people elsewhere without full disclosure.

I further expanded these points by pointing out that the above behavior seems to make the trolls very happy. And that John, upon the trolls appearing seemed to be quite content with their presence.

I would think that is fair commentary because it is limited to a critique of what he has written. Nowhere does it criticize John as a person. I am sure he is a fine person. But Rather than respond to my criticism on the merits, we got a ranting post naming me in specific that accused me of saying things I hadn't said and made comments about the status of my mental health. In fact the post was so bad that management actually shut it down.

Now I might be crazy or maybe I've been on the Internet too long but, to me, there isn't any difference between John's ranting post and his penchant for saying things like "those big spenders in America" when he particpates on a daily basis. Those two statements are cut from the same cloth. And if management around here is really interested in knowing why various posters do not seem motivated to write about the meals they have taken, I offer the text from a recent email I recieved. Once again, apologies to the writer but I will not disclose their name

"I am considering a two week hiatus on posting to add my silence as a message against the piling on you. Whiting's snide article about eGullet's rich Americans is pretty shabby, and his defense of St. Suvir stinks, in my opinion. Let's see how lively and entertaining this place is without us obnoxious American elites who post all that extraneous prattle that has nothing to do with food."

Now to be honest about it the writer decided against it. But it serves to show how disruptive it is when a member decides it's okay to critique other members. Not about their opinion about food which would be okay, but about their person.

Not to be repetitive about this point but, John instigated and encouraged this behavior from Suvir on the anti-Semitism thread and then went out and wrote an article about the downfall of eGullet. And he did it without full disclosure. Then when I asked him the hard question about it, he went out to smear me which would clearly bring all the trolls out. I know I made a joke about Munchhausen Syndrome but......

I know the moderators here are besieged when these things happen. And I don't need Fat Guy sending me emails telling me I'm making it more difficult to moderate. But I wish there was a clear rule about making personal comments on the board. They really don't fit in and they have nothing to do with food. They only serve to disrupt the conversation. And it would eliminate the trolls all in one fell swoop. The other boards I post to just won't allow it and they remove any personal comments from the board usually before anyone complains. Personally I am confused about why they are allowed to remain on this board and I know many others share that opinion.

[tommy]

Further to this point, he has used the facility of his member/writer status to go "off the board" and discuss those same people elsewhere without full disclosure.

silly plots. we don't need member/writer status to talk about you behind your back! we all do it all the time.

[cabrales]

Since this thread is rolling inexorably forward, can we cut to the chase?  . . .  The real issue, which is hinted at obliquely, or taken for granted as understood, is just this:  within his article, John gave a brief account of the incidents surrounding the French anti-semitism thread and Suvir.  Steve Plotnicki, and maybe other members, believe the account was inaccurate.

Wilfrid -- I would agree with that assessment. From my perspective, the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters were troubling and I commented on them. There was no action -- no clarification to address what I subjectively considered to be an ambiguous (if not misleading, including by omission) post by Suvir regarding his return. However, I accepted the situation and let by-gones be by-gones. I decided I would not post in the India forum, but acquiesced. Other members interested in the Neo-Nazi/France thread apparently did the same, based on my incomplete understanding of interim board postings at least.

Suffice it to say that it was John's article that "re-raised" the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters, and members not interested in this rearing itself again might want to ask themselves what the relative timing of the submission of the article was relative to the previous "death" of the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters. While I am personally not aware of when John's article was submitted to the Writers' Guild, the timing relative to the time when the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters had subsided could, for me, be telling.

John -- If you are comfortable discussing it, could you consider describing how you became comfortable (as a journalist), including the account of the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matter (including an indication that Suvir was the "victim"?) in your article for the Writers' Guild, given the lack of disclosure on the board of the relevant facts?

[Wilfrid]

Steve and Cabrales, thanks for your temperate and clarifying posts. Steve: I think the clear rule is a hard one for eGullet, when there is so much personal comment - and I mean stacks of it - most of it neither intended to be, nor taken as, offensive. I hear what you say about John's political comments, but I find an awful lot of political comments from the other side of the fence appearing on the site without complaint. I did criticize John's first article for its misplaced emphasis on free-spending millionaires - you praised it. His more recent article is, I think, more balanced in that respect. So I have trouble believing that's the issue, although I don't want to question your sincerity.

Just a thought: I know I can be pedantic, argumentative and even annoying. We all have our online faults. Do you think you too can sometimes rush at people a little aggressively from time to time? Haggis - I know you apologized. Cakewalk. Can we get back to some congeniality?

[Bux]

While I am personally not aware of when John's article was submitted to the Writers' Guild, the timing relative to the time when the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters had subsided could, for me, be telling.

Cabrales, offhand I can't offer an exact date, but I can tell you that John hastily rewrote the article so as not to be embarrassed by Suvir's reappearance on the site. The publication date would have been just days after that day. I am not sure if John learned of Suvir's appearance online, or if Suvir notified him slightly in advance of his first post here.

Can you tell me what this could tell you?

[cabrales]

Wilfrid -- I'm not indicating any member has any on-line faults, except that I can be long-winded, unduly technical and off-topic. However, my prior point was that it's the combination of any faults and everything else each member brings that causes eGullet to be what it is, and to have been what it was. I don't have any issue with the valuable package that John offers, except in connection with his conclusion on the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters and his "re-stirring" the flames on this matter. It's as if one has accepted an injury even though there is a scab that is on its way to disappearing to reveal different, but nonetheless healthy, tissue, and then parties who took the opposite position deliberately peel off that scab.

[cabrales]

Can you tell me what this could tell you?

Bux -- If John resubmitted the article after I and certain other members had acquiesced on (i.e., given up the pursuit of) the reinvolvement of Suvir, then my subjective read WOULD be as follows:

1. At the time of the submission of the article, John knows Steve P, Nina W, I and others are active posters. He knows that we might be tempted to respond to the article (with the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matters rather prominently featured), and he knows, of course, that he will post the article on the board at my request.

2. At the time of the subimssion of the article, John also knows that Suvir might prefer to let things be, given the acquiescence. Or would somebody in John's position and with his knowledge of the board be thinking that Suvir would desire a thread like this one continuing on and on? If somebody in John's position were looking after Suvir's interests, he might also make the inference that a person in Suvir's position (not that I am inferring what Suvir might or might not be thinking) might prefer not to have the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir matter broadcast before a cast of hundreds in the food-writing community, some of whom might know him or otherwise be in a position to later work with him. Even though Suvir is painted in apparently admired strokes in the article, it would not be unreasonable to consider that a person in Suvir's position would not want a UK journalist to come onto the site and investigate in detail the applicable threads, including ones on Site Tips.

3. At the time of the submission of the article, given (1) and (2) above, it is reasonable to assume that somebody in John's position would have inferred that I, Steve P, Nina W, certain other members AND Suvir (let alone the moderators) would have preferred the status quo (i.e., no stirring up).

4. If the facts are described above, whose interests might somebody in John's position actually be advancing by including the Suvir matters in the article?

[LaNiña]

Thank you, Cabrales.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Well the troll issue is a tough one. It's kind of hard to tell who is and who isn't. But I'm much happier blaming it on management because they continue to allow the trolls to remain on the board . But in specific, I have to disagree with you about Cakewalk as I have some pretty good analysis in my inbox about Cakewalk being a troll. Someone said it best yesterday in a PM. Any new member who starts out with a negative post is suspect. And that's because it echoes the tactics of the trolls.

As to political comments, I'm not complaining about someone taking a political position, I'm talking about denigrating members because of their political beliefs. You might be a conservative, and I might think that things conservatives believe in are moronic. But you will never hear me call you a moron as a way of denigrating your person. I know that line is somewhat inexact. But the real issue here is motivation.

If we cut to the chase here and evaluate this in the specific, one of the great things on this site is that it actually has people with significant experience at haute cuisine establishments. And it happens to be the case that one can't have that experience without being able to afford it. So how is anyone supposed to take a statement from another member denigrating their experience? And further to that point, why would a member want to make that statement? Isn't it just an indirect way of shining a bad light on that category? And ultimately doesn't it attempt to discourage writing about that category? That is the thrust of my point. None of it is commentary about food, it is commentary about who eats it. Somewhere between the two the line is crossed as to what is appropriate and what isn't. And as usual it is on a case by case basis. Management thinks John crossed the line with his "Dr. Plotters" post. I'm just suggesting that the line was crossed at an earlier point in time.

[Jinmyo]

I can be long-winded, unduly technical and off-topic.

But endearingly so.

[Ron Johnson]

Please stop flogging! The horse is dead!

Seriously, how many more pages do you guys think you can go on saying the same thing over and over and over and over again? None of which, interestingly, has the slightest fucking thing to do with food.

So John Whiting pissed some people off. Do we have to have a 7 page thread about it?

Let it go.

Edit disclosure: Its now a 6 page thread, oops make that 7.

[LaNiña]

John hates Steve. Steve hates John. Various people fall into one camp or another. Or so it would appear. They air their distaste for one another in public. We watch. Sometimes we participate. The threads are well attended. It's theatre. If anyone doesn't want to read those threads, just don't. Post about what you want to discuss. Read what interests you. Ignore what doesn't.

It is that simple.

[Wilfrid]

But you will never hear me call you a moron as a way of denigrating your person.

No, it's usually "knucklehead" if I recall correctly.

Ron - I sympathize, but this horse has plenty of life left in it. It is not good for the site, and (Nina) it;s very hard indeed to ignore. I just wish we could finally lance the boil. But then maybe that's wishful thinking.

Could I just say that I hate neither John nor Steve? Ta.

[cabrales]

I like both Steve P and John. What I am taking issue with are John's repeated statements of a conclusion that he believes in, but that is unsupported by publicly available facts and that John knows I and certain other members are uncomfortable with.

[helenas]

The Egullet Theatre Company presents: