Standing By Words


I don’t allow anonymous comments on this site, but anonymous cowards usually find a way to comment here anyway. Thing is, I don’t have a measure in place that keeps people from posting a fake e-mail address. I require that they leave an e-mail address, but I have no way of forcing someone to provide a real one. Every single time I’ve had a comment wherein someone disagrees with me, they have failed to provide a real, valid e-mail address. I have to wonder why. I’m not really that scary. Why do they fear to back up what they say? They seem to be more interested in playing some silly, schoolyard game of slap and run. That’s just ridiculous. If you have something to say, have the courage to say it and stand by it. I can’t take you seriously if you are too afraid to engage in intellectual debate. I always post my real e-mail address when I make a comment, and to date, the boogie-man has never bitten me. If you believe in something strongly enough to say it, to post it on someone’s site, own up to it and invite discussion. Not to do that is simply cowardice. Frankly, if you hide behind fake names and e-mails, it makes it look like you’re not really sure of yourself, that you feel your position is weak. Stand by your words.


2 thoughts on “Standing By Words

  1. Preach on! I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me if they have valid reasons and/or have put thought behind their position. I hate it when people leave comments with addresses like or garbage like that. I won't bite their heads off, I promise. I'm more likely to email them back with a "I disagree, but thank you for your PoV" or whatever.

  2. Hi. I don't know quite how I arrived at your blog on Marilou Braswell on 9/8/04 while I was surfing. But I found it and the attached comments interesting enough to research the events. There are several web resources on the particulars, one of them being which obviously is biased in favor of Marylou. I reread your comments and wonder if you read anything beyond the AJC news article before forming your opinion.

    The AJC article never mentioned that Steele had already participated for 3 years as a cheerleader and that cheerleaders are not given a 4th year to perform. Why was Steele given preferential treatment. Or that the previous complaint against Marylou was from Steele during her sophomore year. The article falsely insinuated that other students formally complained about being discriminated against, not Steele making the accusations as a sophomore and junior. Due to the discrimination complaint, Marylou, appropriately, did not score Steele for tryouts her junior year. Interestingly, Marylou gave Steele the highest scores of any judges the previous 2 years. WHen Steele received lower scores from the other judges, she complained that Marylou did not judge her. Yet if she did, it would not be fair because Marylou is biased. No win situation.

    And the AJC article never mentioned that Marylou had asked from her supervisors on how to address the team on why Steele was given a 4th year on the squad, (everyone else being limited to 3 years) and without having to tryout.

    Maybe, just maybe, Ms Steele was not good enough to make the prized football squad and used her religion to manipulate the system. And this is coming from a minority that knows quite a bit about being discriminated against. I am a supporter of the ACLU and ADL, but they too have an agenda and will take on any cause, even against the innocent, for news headlines and promote their position.
    I hope you take the time to read to get the other sides perspective instead of taking a news article for fact.

Comments are closed.