I celebrated the New Year with a wedding. No, I didn’t fly off to Vegas on a whim, or watch “Wedding Story” on the TLC network. But I attended the wedding of a good friend to ring in 2006. I loved that it saved me the pain of paying 100 dollars to go to some generic party, or the anguish of packing myself into a bar with other sweaty people. I didn’t have to think. They just told me where to go and I just showed up. Then they fed me and gave me an open bar…I was happy.
Now, I always have to wonder at every wedding I attend, will I have to play the part of Bridget Jones sitting at a table of all smug marrieds? Will I have to answer that “Are you dating anyone?” question until I am blue in the face while being given looks of pity combined with enjoyment? Or will I be placed with the drunk, obnoxious cousin from Kentucky that can’t hold a girlfriend because of his love of Pabst Blue Ribbons? Luckily, I didn’t have to wait long because I was clued into the fact that I was being placed among the other misfits and outcasts of the wedding; what most people know as “The Singles Table”.
Yet, my attitude was strong and positive, and after a few minutes, I knew this table would be different. I began to realize all that is great about being single. While the other tables dined in class and silence, paying attention to which fork was for which course and talking about work, money market funds and golf, the Singles Table, frolicked, played, laughed, and spent most of our time taking one “you had to be there” picture after another with those disposable table cameras. (We figured we were put in the corner for a good reason.) It was carefree. It was fun. It wasn’t forced.
So maybe nightlife in San Jose is a little like that Singles Table at a wedding. You dread it. You complain about it. But when you actually get there, it sure can be a whole lot of fun. Sometimes, you just need to give it a chance.
Dear Single Gal,
Rationalizations for all phases of life are topics for conversation. Personally, I found being single to be an often wonderful and stimulating experience. Now I find married life to be just the same. Never a dull moment! Having fun with a bunch of married folk is one heck of a lot of fun.
Single Gal, maybe you should move to Kentucky since you have family over there, and your blog, this time, has very little to do with San Jose. It’s sure is nice in the backwater place.
Dear fed up blogger, will you and the other whiney, know-it-all, holier-then-though grumps give Single Gal a break. Her blogs are much more emblematic of life locally in the south bay than most others, especially the self serving monlogues of a certain former Mayor with an oversized sense of his own importance.
Great idea Fed Up! I am growing a mullet just for the impending move…
Single Gal writes:
I loved that it saved me the pain of paying 100 dollars to go to some generic party, or the anguish of packing myself into a bar with other sweaty people. I didn’t have to think. They just told me where to go and I just showed up. Then they fed me and gave me an open bar…I was happy.
——-
Pain, anguish? Gee, I never thought I’d hear a modern, liberated woman describing the freedom to go where she pleases in such negative terms. But I can’t say I blame her; I don’t know why a gal would even contemplate paying money to get into a place she doesn’t want to be, let alone consider subjecting herself to a crowd of unpleasant people. Being a single gal these days sounds kind of tough.
A hundred years ago Single Gal wouldn’t have been faced with such unpleasant options. Unescorted women did not walk into parties, pay their own way, or go to bars. They were not liberated. Going out back then was limited to the few events—the theater, a church social, a dance—that society saw as appropriate for a young woman.
Sure it worked, but it sounds so old fashioned, doesn’t it? I mean, how could a young women be “happy” if going out meant attending events where she didn’t have to think, introductions were organized, custom dictated behavior, and she was told where to sit? All that was required of the single gals back then was that they be feminine and pleasant. The poor dears! Didn’t they realize what they were missing? The right to enjoy the crass ambience of the neighborhood bar, the freedom to subject themselves to the advances of slobs of every sort, the opportunity to get drunk and reckless, not to mention, of course, the privilege of paying their hard earned money for it.
A hundred years ago, before America got so smart, society provided young women with organized opportunities to have fun and meet eligible young men—
exactly like the one Single Gal apparently found to be so liberating.
Why jump on someone who is merely stating her experiences. If you are a “fed up blogger” then why blog? Scott Herhold had an interesting observation in the Merc the other day when he noted a good many commenters to blogs in SanJoseInside hide behind ficticious names. I wonder why?
Finfan –
For everything I love about being independent and able to do so many things many women before me couldn’t do…..I agree, it sure seemed easier back then to be a woman.
Dan Sturgess (#5):
“Jump on someone.” ? ? ? I didn’t jump on anyone, and I doubt Single Gal interpreted it that way. All I did was use her words to point out that the practices and beliefs of our ancestors were not, as they are so often depicted, without merit. Freedom from traditional mandates often works better in theory than it does in practice, and this experiment in feminism, one that has deprived marriage-minded young women of the assistance once provided them by their church and community, has left many women feeling frustrated and lonely.
At a time when so many women are living lives filled with self-help books and pharmaceuticals, questioning assumptions and values—even those untouchable, politically correct ones—is a good thing.
As for whatever it was that Scott Herhold said, if it was an indeed “an interesting observation” then that’s news in itself. If he has a problem with bloggers who say things using fictitious names, too bad. I have a problem with newspaper columnists who say nothing using their own names.
How do we know Scott Herhold even writes his own articles? I’m sure he doesn’t have an “intern” or two.
Some years ago Tom M complianed about the Merc adopting by lines for their reporting. This has been a negative trend in news reporting for many years. Every cub reporter in the country can’t wait to read their name in the paper the day after filing “their” report as if the news of an earthquake or civil unrest somewherre in the world was an original thought or contribution by the reporter. Scott Herhold needs to focus on the content, not the personality or identity of the reporter. Keep it up Mal Content, T. Jefferson, finfan and others.
Finfan –
Classic comment. Especially, “I have a problem with newspaper columnists who say nothing using their own names.” Amen!
#6. It seems the world has historically been full of people who “hide behind fictitious names.” Here are a few more for Scott Herhold to mull over:
George Orwell – pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair.
Poor Richard – pseudonym of Ben Franklin, one of many that he used.
Woody Allen – Pseudonym of a guy named Allen Stewart Konigsberg.
Bob Dylan – pseudonym of an appliance store owners son named Robert Allen Zimmerman.
Judy Garland – pseudonym of a lady by the name of Frances Ethel Gumm.
John Lange – a literary pseudonym used by author Michael Crichton.
John Le Carre’ – pseudonym of David Cornwell. (Who?)
Moliere – pseudonym of Jean Baptiste Poquelin, who apparently prefered to remain anonymous.
Single Gal – nom de plume of ???
I could go on, but you get the idea…the use of the pseudonym is not unique to the blogosphere.
What’s surprising is that Herhold, and others, make an issue out of it.
Not to mention the anonymous sources that are so often used to gin up “fake but accurate” news.
If Herhold had it his way we wouldn’t have a “Mal Content” or a “frustrated finfan”. Now that I know how Mal Content came up with his name, I wouldn’t want him to change it.
If Richard Robinson called himself “Lobbyist Guy” I would read his comments the same way….if I wanted to know more about his background, I would ask or learn from reading his posts.
Here’s my substitute New Year’s Resolution:
It would be great if more people who read this site actually participated. I know there are a lot of people who read this and could contribute to the quality of the comments. The more the merrier – pick any name you like!
I agree with Scott Herhold. If you want to state your opinion in public and to be taken seriously, then you should sign your name to it. At least former mayor Tom is willing to sign his name to what he writes.
Scott Herhold is completely wrong, and so is #6 and #18. For all we know they are not using their real names either.
By the way Mal Content served #6 pretty good. Good job Mal Content
What is the problem with fictious names. It is the point of blogs to be able to say whatever you want withou fear of retribution or embarassment. I love the blogs and even the over zealous former mayor who is trying to get our city back to a place where we can trust our leaders. As for single girl wish she’d post a photo so we could all see her. maybe she’d get some overs. If she is half as good looking as she is smart and witty she’s a great catch.
I always thought of them as pen names…
At least that’s what I learned in English Lit 101
How do we know that Scott Herhold’s real name is Scott Herhold?
Has anybody seen his ID recently?
Michael Schwerin (#18):
Rethink your assumptions. First, don’t be so certain that all of us want to be taken seriously. Were that my priority do you think I would have chosen my particular nom de plume? Personally, I don’t care how you take frustrated finfan; it is fictional identity devoid of feelings and safe from personal consequence. When I post (or read one) all that is important is the message. If you would pay more heed to a message simply because it was accompanied by a recognizable name or a PhD., you are a fool. The world is full of people who, though well-known and accredited, peddle only nonsense. If you will recall, it was the mindless politicians and so-called experts who brought ruin to our mental health, education, judicial, and public welfare systems. Had their “enlightened” thinking been subjected to the hard skepticism upon which this country was founded, we’d have all benefitted.
Examine what possible motives Scott Herhold might have for assailing SanJoseInside’s anonymous bloggers. You might suppose that he objects to anonymity anywhere on the internet, but I don’t think so. Anonymous blogging has been going on for years and I don’t recall him or anyone else at the paper complaining about it previously. Plus, it appears that what bothers him is specific: those who post using fictional names on this site. Now why is that? Is he just dying to know who’s who, or could it be that he, as someone who peddles opinions locally for a living, is threatened by those providing them for free on a popular local site? Threatened especially by those who are, due to their anonymity, immune from the press’s power to stifle and intimidate them?
I’m sure you’ve heard the old adage: Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Well, I want to be free to argue with them and so do many others. And as long as we remain anonymous Scott Herhold’s barrel of ink can’t stain us. As long as we remain outside the paper’s reach they cannot dig up dirt on us or, in its absence, use their keyboards to pound-out half-truths and insinuations and inflict the kind of dread and discredit that originally spawned the ominous warning cited.
The anonymous voice is difficult to size-up. If there is one thing a newsman wants to avoid it’s to give a voice to, or get into an exchange with, someone whose knowledge base cannot be measured, and from whom nothing can be taken. Interview the doctor at the emergency room? Sure. He has a lot of knowledge, but there’s no way he’ll risk saying what he really thinks of pregnant drug addicts. How about that police captain? Absolutely. He’s got a career to consider; he wouldn’t dare say anything politically incorrect, no matter how true. The moron on the corner? Not to worry. He’s too stupid to influence anyone.
When Scott Herhold offers up an idiotic statement or incorrect bit of information you can be certain of three things: one, the mistake gets noticed by people in the know; two, those in the know will weigh the repercussions before even thinking of publicly contradicting him; and three, Scott Herhold counts on this. This is a powerful paradigm, one that, especially in a one newspaper town, intimidates, or at least gives pause to, everyone from the mayor to the police chief. This is paradigm the press has long enjoyed; one it will not give up without a fight.
So Herhold, feigning an ethical stand, condemns the anonymous blogger and chastises the site that hosts them. But the concern is not about ethics, credibility, courage, or even what constitutes a good blog. It’s about power.. and power… and power.
Dan, likewise for Single Gal and other croonies. They all use fake names, too. So, there’s not a damn chance that I’ll use mine because the opinion is more important than my real identity.
Without anonymity, a columnist would be placing their careers at risk were s/he to write columns that strayed from the left-leaning, suffocatingly politically correct, group-think that dominates the lion’s share of todays news organizations.
(Yes, yes, I know, but Fox is only but 1 news org. in the entire news universe)
A healthy debate and a free exchange of ideas without fear of retribution?
You bet – but not at the Merc and the other mainstream news outlets across the country – instead it’s to be found at SJI and other blogs.
Long live the world wide web.
frustrated finfan (#20)
I thought you were just frustrated because the Sharks have been doing so poorly. Apparently you also seriously dislike journalists. I do not believe Scott Herhold was attacking this web site as much as making an observation or stating an opinion. At least he signs his name to his column. Signing your name is an act of accountablility. So much so that a significant portion of our laws (contracts) is based on that fact. It is easy to attack people from behind the curtain (oh great Wizard) but when the curtain is pulled aside and you are looking someone in the fact, the bluster suddenly goes away.
Did someone call my name?
Two days after Scott Herhold’s 1/1 column questioning the credibility of anonymous bloggers on SJI he wrote another column.
Herhold’s 1/3 article on the late Harry Farrell extolled the virtues of a reporter who withheld names of prominent local people involved in the St. James Park lynchings, arguably one of the most infamous crimes in San Jose’s history.
In describing Farrell as “an extraordinarily good reporter” Herhold went on to say that Farrell “…told friends he did not want to embarrass the families of men who had been very young when it all happened.”
This is an interesting act of ethical juggling! Does a journalist who withholds names of criminals have greater credibility than people who anonymously share political opinions on a blog page?
A note to Mr. Herhold: I agree that Harry Farrell was an excellent reporter and I do not necessarily disagree with his decision to withhold the names. However I question the obvious double standard in your logic.
Single Gal, are you on my space?
I am not.. tell me about it! I have heard about it in passing….is it kind of like a Friendster?
The Single Gal has never been afraid of snapping a couple “you had to be there” pictures.
Single Gal,
Yeah, kinda like friendster. Here is an example of my page.. Don’t laugh!
http://www.myspace.com/girlfromthenet
Mr. Schwerin,
If I understand you correctly, you believe that Scott Herhold made his comment without any ulterior motives. Why do you believe that? Has he ever commented on something posted by any of the anonymous bloggers on SanJoseInside? He has not. Has he previously even mentioned the site? I don’t think so. Thus, there is no reason to assume that his regular readers are even acquainted with SJI.
But, of course, he has a right to his opinion, and voice it he did. But where? On SJI, where every reader would be familiar with the anonymous participants he criticized, and where his opinion would be fair game for contradiction? No. He instead wrote it in his lame column, where his is the only voice heard. For all the opportunity he gave others to disagree by taking that route, he might just as well have spray painted his opinion on a downtown wall.
No one identifying himself as Scott Herhold participates on SJI, yet he offered “a resolution” to the bloggers just the same. What chutzpah. Resolutions are decisions made by the individual. But in Herhold’s world, it is the newspaper that decides these things, just like they tell folks how to vote, what to think, and who to fear. Too bad Mr. McEnery and Mr. Barry didn’t consult Mr. Herhold when they were putting their site together. He could have dictated the rules for them; after all, he is the self-proclaimed arbiter of blogging etiquette and personal credibility.
Mal # 10: There is a HUGE difference between a stage name and someone “hiding” behind an anonymous blog name. Hiding is the operative word here. See gelvey #12.
FinFan #20 makes some interesting points re anonymity. Ben Franklin certainly had a need for it at times. There was a legimitimate fear of retribution from The Crown. But what, pray tell, is finfan’s legitimate fear of retribution for expressing his ideas? If “CityHallMole” is truly a city employee, then she/he has a legitimate fear of retribution which easily justifies a blogonym.
I didn’t read the Herhold byline many have referred to, so I cannot comment. But I do admit to a bias that good ideas and bad ideas sent into the public domain should, in most instances, be accredited. Anonymous venom is just like the white sheet and hood guys—cowardly and rarely worthy of serious consideration. That differs from anonymous expression of merely unpopular ideas, which is protected speech.
fedup#20: If you truly believed your opinion was important (to anyone other than yourself), you would be proud to take ownership of it by using your real name.
Mal #25: The fact that Mr. Farrell may have been erroneous in withholding names does not validate your argument. It just means both people were wrong.
GirlFromTheNet #29: very difficult to see anything, especially text, on your space due to the overpoweringly dark background. Visually very unappealing. Doesn’t encourage lingering.
John Michael, that’s okay, it’s not meant to appeal to people of your calibur…
So, Net Girl #32—how am I to take that?