Raised by Wolves …
… That is the way I’ve come to think of “ttstark,” the person who posts flames on this blog that have zero to do with either the topic under consideration or the general tone of mullentown.
I’m probably insulting wolves by saying that. Wolves are known for their strict social order and for being good parents to their young. “ttstark” simply comes across as a boor with a poor upbringing. Also, I have the distinct feeling he’s drunk when he writes these posts. And a bitter drunk at that.
I hadn’t even checked in this weekend, mostly because I took a dream bicycle ride halfway to Big Mountain (at the Salt Lake/Morgan County line) on Saturday and truly enjoyed Mother’s Day on Sunday. My family gave me time — the best gift of all. I planted my tomatoes and then sat on the porch drinking pinot grigio from a box while reading Barbara Kingsolver’s new book. I’ve always been a fan of Kingsolver, and this new non-fiction work is a cross between her fabulous essays and a journalistic foray into how we get the food we eat.
So, I called up mullentown this a.m. and found yet another flame by this character (See “Girl and Fire,” May 9 post). I saw all your kind efforts to defend me. I’ve also received a couple of e-mails from readers encouraging me to somehow shut off his access to the site. I guess that decision is partially up to all of you. What do you think?
I’m naturally anti-censorship. But as my brilliant Webmaster Joey pointed out to me a few minutes ago, I’m paying for this site and I should have some power over who uses it. He compares it to owning a restaurant. My blog is open to the public and it benefits from varied opinions. But I wouldn’t sit by and allow someone to come into the restaurant, throw trash all over and scream insults at me, the proprietor, or at the patrons. Joey suggests if ttstark has a problem with me kicking him off the blog, maybe he should pay to keep the domain name — and all the others costs associated with the site.
Of course, shunning him the way many of you already have might work. I tried ignoring him, but that didn’t work. If you would like to take up this topic on mullentown, go ahead. Right now, I’m inclined to kick him off, but I can be swayed the other way with a good argument.
Peace out.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Well…to use a metaphor; I often view this blog as a punch bowl, filled with fine champagne (Dom Perignon maybe). ttstark has all the charm of a dead tsete fly swirling about. Just nihilistic rant.
Perhaps `Hasta La Vista` is the solution.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Flush him and then punch your Staples “That was easy” button.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
My advice would be to ignore ttstark.
Kicking ttstark off could easily turn into a vicious circle of having to ban new user names associated with easily acquired email addresses. I think that you are giving ttstark exactly what he/she wanted - attention.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
While it may be true that Holly’s comments are ‘fair game’ for criticism as are the opinions of all journalists, this TStark fellow is taking liberties beyond those bounds. instead of Mr. Stark…such a phony nom de plume in my opinion…taking on Holly with these chicken shit IED attacks on her, I invite him to meet me at the top stairway of our City Weekly office from where I’d happily send him all akimbo down to street or gutter level where he belongs. Why? His most recent post has nothing to with Mullentown but with what Holly has written in City Weekly. Why haven’t we heard from you TS? As well, TS claims to know me. If so, TS knows how little I think of such behavior and if so he knows a swift kick in the ass is more than warranted. Stay on point, sir, or remain under your anonymous rock. You claim to be a professional ‘former’ journalist? Ha!
May 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think your webmaster has a good point. I mean most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. If ttstark actually had any semblance of something close to having a rational thought, that would be one thing, but he/she doesn’t. All he/she does is talk trash and attack you on a personal level. I feel this is completely unfair and uncalled for. I guess you’ll have to decide if you are going to let ttstark get under your skin. Consider also that ttstark doesn’t really show up that often. Anytime there is an open forum, you are going to get your fair share of jerks. That’s just the nature if having a blog. My advice would be to wait a bit and see if this person can learn to behave.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I agree with Saltas. Out of bounds. Stark, get thee out of the closet and bring forth the Oedipal Complex with which you are apparently aggrieved, or cease with the moronic and pointless name calling. Acquire an existence of your own, sir/madam.
Mullen, you have the right to demand a certain level of civility and respect. Diverse opinions, yes. Senseless fifth-grade name calling, no.
I say fight him out behind the school on Wednesday at 4:30.
Just sayin.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I’d like to join John in kicking his ass. And I would do it on the way to church and feel good about sitting in the pew. Or just before one of my blowhard lectures on political civility. And still feel good about it.
But…openness is what Holly stands for and always has. She has had far more ferocious critics in her journalistic life because they knew not everyone anywhere is writing about the War in Iraq and made some sense. He can’ get this simple stuff through his brain cramp.
Let’s look at this guy the way we should. Like we laugh at the monkeys at the zoo. So let him continue. Zoo tickets have gone up lately.
A dutiful and very defensive (and damn proud of it) husband, Ted
May 14th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’m new to commenting on blogs, but I feel qualified to comment about this “ttstark”. I checked his last comment to see what the complaints were about and this person reminded me of the many Behavior Disordered children I’ve taught for many years. These types of people will do anything for positive OR negative attention. There are a couple of ways to try handling this poisonous personality, and both involve denying the attention that he/she pathologically craves.
First, you can let this person vent, but don’t get sucked into the morass. Ignoring this type of crap is really difficult and it usually causes the behavior to get worse at first. If everyone can hang on and completely ignore this person, he/she may go off to find somebody else to torture. Again, completely ignoring this person will be hard, and ANY type of attention will keep the behavior going. We are giving “ttstark” exactly what he/she craves with these posts. (I hate to say it, but I think a few of you look like you kind of enjoy the electronic namecalling and threats that I’ve read here.)
The second thing to try is to remove ourselves from “ttstark’s” company by denying him/her access to this site. This will also deny attention to this person so we can all get on with our own conversations. This would be the easy way to make “ttstark” move on to torture others.
My personal feeling is that Holly is tough enough to take it. Let “ttstark” bloviate to his/her heart’s content and don’t get sucked in to commenting.
Holly, I’m excited to see you editing the City Weekly. I’ve missed your Trib column and I’m glad to be reading you again!
May 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Just read an article this morning in the Washington Post by Tom Grubisich, “Sunshine for the Virtual Town Hall”, where he talked about hatemongers stalking so many blogs, and the balance between transparency and privacy, between heady free speech and venomous spewing.
He indicated some sites have required use of real names, or at least real names and contact information (like a phone number) required for registration, then a pseudonym can still be used for posts–but your Webmaster would know who’s behind each pseudonym. Don’t know if that’s too burdensome for him, or the technology you’re using.
While I love the free interplay here, tt’s poison adds nothing to discourse. As Brubisich concluded about requiring some accountability, “…spirited online debate would continue unimpeded. It might even be enhanced by attracting contributors who are turned off today by name calling and worse. Except for the hate-mongers, who wouldn’t want that?”
May 14th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Holly, you are paying to maintain this site. It is your site, it is your good name. Many of us enjoy reading and contemplating your ideas. I don’t have time to read all his/her crap, it just wastes time and energy. I visit your site for enjoyment. REMOVE TTSTARK.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:49 am
If you kick him out,she/he will only return w/another screen name.He/She probably has one or more waiting in the wings reserved for moments such as this.
I’m reminded of a supervisor I had a few years ago who only spoke to us to harass,b*tch and complain. She too was a pathetic school yard bully.
Hit the delete button on this loser. It doesn’t deserve an audience.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Ah, damn it all! I just spent a few moments writing a thoughtful comment about the problem of ttstark and I somehow managed to lose it (or at least it hasn’t appeared yet).
The gist of it was this. Ttstark, you’re probably reading this and I gotta tell you, you remind me of a sitcom/cartoon character. Your life would probably turn out a lot better if you got a sense of humor and regarded yourself as such.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I thought Mr. Saltas’ response was the cat’s meow until I got to Mr. Wilson’s. That’s a good husband!!!
Honestly, Holly, if you shut him down he can pop up another way. Up to you though, unpleasantness (as opposed to dissent) should not be rewarded. I’d probably flush him in a fit of temper. You’ve already put more though into that I could or would.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
P.S. Loved the raised by wolves comment. That’s how I refer to my ex’s parenting of my 15 year old.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
A bunch of good comments. True taking Ttstark out behind the woodshed and whaling the tar out of him is what he deserves. However, since he is no more likely to come by and take what he deserves like a man, than hold off on the stupid name calling just because all the reasonable voices here feel he should then you only have two real choices; ignore him or ban him. Since his ’style’ is obvious, if he continues to reappear under other aliases, hew should be easy to block. You could also put new members on a ‘moderated’ status (comments not posted until read by the webmaster) until they have commented several time and shown they are not our problem child. If he has to choke out several reasonable posts before he can have free rein to dump his garbage, he’ll like either give up in futility or choke on his own bile.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
You’ve already given the kid too much attention. To block him would take more time and effort than he deserves. Let him stay, then ignore him. He has nothing of value to say.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:33 am
What a dope. Ignorant….I loved the blogs by JSaltas & also by your husband Ted Wilson! I wouldn’t waste my time on the moron. Stay the way you are….
May 16th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Am I the only person who doesn’t think that threats of violence are warranted?
This guy has behaved like a jerk, to be sure. But the moment you conceive of him as a comical, pathetic character, he becomes infinitely less threatening - and so do we.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
This person could be pulling weeds in their own garden instead of being one in yours.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Although the ttstark rant is mean-spirited, I would vote to leave him be - it doesn’t seem worth the effort to quash his access to the site. Can’t we just ignore what we don’t agree with?
Thanks for asking our opinions.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:05 am
HEY WEBMASTER: I just submitted a comment (at 0403 hrs MDT) and the website shows it submitted at 0203 a.m. Is the web being supported in Alaska time, or is there just an adjustment needed somewhere?
Thanks for the attention.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Times should be correct now. Thanks for the heads up.