Apology accepted. Please don't do it again. We get enough grandstanding on this site already, I don't see why it needs to be linked to as well.

Oh come on. What's the big deal?

John, just e-mail repoz or someone else like that and politely ask for a link.

Conlin also wrote “It was quite obviously used in a personal e-mail.” This tells us that since he felt his opinion would not be made public, he could indulge his desire to deny dissenting points-of-view a place is contemporary society.

I dunno. The "used in a personal e-mail" line tells me that he was just venting and blowing off steam.

Might've helped to link to the crashburn alley article at the outset here. I read this a little disorientated, like someone who walks into a movie during the third reel.

I don't get it, why are bloggers allowed to spew whatever hyperbolic bile they wish on, for example, a certain baseball team in Florida's owners or Philadelphia columnists, while Conlin can't be vicious right back?

Because (a) no one spewed bile at Conlin, and (b) even if they did, his response, esp. the Hitler comment, was way, way, way out of line.

A man who demands First Amendment rights and uses that platform to suggest denying those same rights to others should not be employed by a medium where exercise of those (rights) is deemed necessary.

John, are you really suggesting that Conlin should lose his job over that stupid little rant of his? Should Tim Page have been fired for venting to Marion Barry in that private e-mail of his?

There may be a hundred very good reasons to send Conlin out to pasture and hire one of the better bloggers in his place, but this isn't one of them.

Conlin can vent all he wants, but unless he has the power to enforce his dumbassed prejudices, he's merely one more writer with a stupid opinion.

And if bloggers are that jealous of Conlin's position (which I don't think that they are) and think that they deserve jobs like his, then maybe they should try working their way up to a spot like his in one of the traditional ways: Start out on a small town paper or marry the boss's daughter.

IOW we don't need to create yet another mountain out of a molehill.

The original e-mail wasn't bilious, but the blogger response to him has been.

Sites like FJM serve as nothing more than puerile entertainment for teens and arrested cases of development that serve no other purpose than to bait public figures.

As #4 points out, those firing at Conlin have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking on Conlin.

Daddy must be proud.

John, are you really suggesting that Conlin should lose his job over that stupid little rant of his? Should Tim Page have been fired for venting to Marion Barry in that private e-mail of his?

No ... just that he gain a little perspective.

I don't get it, why are bloggers allowed to spew whatever hyperbolic bile they wish on, for example, a certain baseball team in Florida's owners or Philadelphia columnists, while Conlin can't be vicious right back?

Because both are trying to deprive folks of things they are entitled to whether it's free speech or public money that should be spent on public, not private interests.

Best Regards

John

No, if there's a good reason for him to be fired, it's because he couldn't bear to take 3 seconds to think of how maybe what he said was over-the-top and out of line and actually apologize.

NEWS FLASH: CONSIDERATION OF OTHER HUMANS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM

He could have EASILY stood up for his 1st-amendment rights and said "you know what, I shouldn't have used such a horrific example of history to draw attention to how annoyed I am with bloggers. I still think the Mets are the phillies bttches, but calling up the holocaust was too much. Now why don't all you loser bloggers get a damn job."

Seriously.

EDIT: I also don't think Conlin is an anti-semite. But he still deserves everything he's getting here.

Because (a) no one spewed bile at Conlin, and (b) even if they did, his response, esp. the Hitler comment, was way, way, way out of line.

These are both true, Yearrgghhhh, but Swedish's point, I think, is that bloggers and posters here routinely post similar types of remarks about what they wish would happen to mainstream writers, and those comments largely go without condemnation from the rest of us. Just because it's written off as snark doesn't mean it's not equally out-of-line.

I don't agree with Andy that it's a mountain out of a molehill. If I were still a newspaper editor and one of my writers had engaged in this kind of e-mail correspondence with a reader through his company address, there would be serious consequences. I just don't think we should look at this incident in a vacuum. The tone on sites like FJM and too many others has taken whatever mean-spiritedness already existed in mainstream media rhetoric and ratcheted it up several degrees. It seems a little disingenuous to suddenly claim the high road.

These are both true, Yearrgghhhh, but Swedish's point, I think, is that bloggers and posters here routinely post similar types of remarks about what they wish would happen to mainstream writers, and those comments largely go without condemnation from the rest of us. Just because it's written off as snark doesn't mean it's not equally out-of-line.

I don't agree with Andy that it's a mountain out of a molehill. If I were still a newspaper editor and one of my writers had engaged in this kind of e-mail correspondence with a reader through his company address, there would be serious consequences. I just don't think we should look at this incident in a vacuum. The tone on sites like FJM and too many others has taken whatever mean-spiritedness already existed in mainstream media rhetoric and ratcheted it up several degrees. It seems a little disingenuous to suddenly claim the high road.

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. I think Conlin's response is far worse than most of the stuff I've seen on here re mainstream writers. In any event, as you seem to acknowledge, there's a major difference here because Conlin is a professional and has a duty to his employer to think before he writes. I don't think this is a molehill either. If I were his editor I'd either fire him or demand that he make a public apology. His emails indicate that he is seriously lacking in judgment, and I wouldn't want him representing my paper.

Should Tim Page have been fired for venting to Marion Barry in that private e-mail of his?

It wasn't his fault, the b###h set him up.

What would Hitler have done with obnoxious and self-important loudmouth Philadelphia sportswriters?

CONSIDERATION OF OTHER HUMANS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM

It does if you can lose your job for inconsideration.

I'm defending Conlin (I'm a defender of dogs) and attacking the response to him because the response is as much if not more out of line.

It's not just Conlin's 'hitler' remark that has people calling for his head, but his approach to statistics and sportswriting. There might as well be a "Fire Bill Conlin" website set up to achieve that aim. The 'hitler' comment is just an opportunity to get him.

Resentment posing as morality is the refuge of punks.

I have to say that I am sick and tired of mean and nasty snark. How the hell can Conlin be outside any line when Hitler is regularily riffed on in comments on Steve Garvey? Sure they are in jest, but does anybody really think Conlin wish some Gestapo on bloggers? If we can jest meanly so can he.

His Hitler comment is nothing but par for the course. We should welcome him as one of us.

And do mr Brattain really wish that someone dredges up stuff from his comments here and tell his employers that they're offensive and totally inappropriate of a writer for such quality publications?

Why is it so difficult to understand snark on someone's free time when they're not a representative of their employer is different from when they are. Conlin is acting as a representative of his newspaper and is acting like an ass to begin with and then crossed the proverbial line. If I was sending out emails from my work talking talking about Hitler exterminating them and that got back to my employers I'd be done.

has this site Crashburn alley been out longer than August of this year?
I think it is funny that there are more comments on this site (BTF)over this made up controversy, that there are on his entire sight combined.

am i missing something.

maybe the term "Pamphleteers" was fitting.

Why is it so difficult to understand snark on someone's free time when they're not a representative of their employer is different from when they are.

Because it's a rationalization that allows you to both fling poo and to cry for momma when you yourself get hit, thus having both your cake and eating it at the same time?

A few observations:

1. The original email to Conlin was *slightly* provocative. Why mention that others were bashing him at all if you just want to discuss Rollins and Wright?

2. Conlin's Hitler comment was entirely inappropriate and he should apologize for it.

3. It seems silly to think Conlin really wants to silence the bloggers. He's obviously threatened by the baseball bloggers, as he understands computers and blogs undermine his relevance. He's a self-important jerk that was blowing off steam. I really don't think he's trying to quash people's right to speak their opinions. He just has no use for certains opinions personally and made a dumb statement in his anger. He's not a very nice guy.

"Grumpy old man makes really stupid remark" probably isn't worthy of all this hub-bub.

A man who demands First Amendment rights and uses that platform to suggest denying those same rights to others should not be employed by a medium where exercise of those (rights) is deemed necessary.

John, are you really suggesting that Conlin should lose his job over that stupid little rant of his?...

No ... just that he gain a little perspective.

Nice to see that Conlin isn't the only clairifier here. Given your exemplary history I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but I'm still glad to see you put it on the record.

---------------------

3. It seems silly to think Conlin really wants to silence the bloggers. He's obviously threatened by the baseball bloggers, as he understands computers and blogs undermine his relevance. He's a self-important jerk that was blowing off steam. I really don't think he's trying to quash people's right to speak their opinions. He just has no use for certains opinions personally and made a dumb statement in his anger. He's not a very nice guy.

"Grumpy old man makes really stupid remark" probably isn't worthy of all this hub-bub.

That pretty much says it all.

wow this is up on Wikipedia already.

And do mr Brattain really wish that someone dredges up stuff from his comments here and tell his employers that they're offensive and totally inappropriate of a writer for such quality publications?

My remarks here are public. I sign everything with "Best Regards, John" (wherever I post) so people know who is behind the comments. The sig is known well enough that I've been nicknamed "Best Regards, John" by some. The THT staff know I'm here, my boss at MSN likewise. I have no problem for being held accountable for anything I've written here or elsewhere.

Feel free to point out any post I've made here to either employer. As Andy wrote: "Given your exemplary history..." (thanks Andy ... very much appreciated) demonstrates that I have strived to treat others with respect. Sometimes I've written things that I wish I hadn't and I've apologized for those and occasionally I've led with my darker side rather than my head. I'm far from perfect, but I've striven to act in good faith.

I have even given the Marlins front office props at THT (the handling of Scott Olsen) and if they were to build a ballpark with their a lot more of their funds I would not hesitate to do it again.

I've got columns in the hopper both at MSN and THT where I give A-Rod full props for taking control of his career away from Scott Boras. I have been quite critical of Rodriguez in that regard but that doesn't prevent me from giving credit where it's due.

Again, I'm more sinner than saint but to the best of my knowledge I don't think I've ever written a post where I felt somebody here shouldn't express themselves.

Best Regards

John

Why is it so difficult to understand snark on someone's free time when they're not a representative of their employer is different from when they are. Conlin is acting as a representative of his newspaper and is acting like an ass to begin with and then crossed the proverbial line. If I was sending out emails from my work talking talking about Hitler exterminating them and that got back to my employers I'd be done.

I think that if bloggers and posters want their opinions to be taken seriously, as a great many of us do, then we have to be accountable for not just what we write, but what we endorse (and for the record, I believe John is).

Look at the first e-mail Bill sends Conlin. In the first paragraph he identifies himself as a blogger and his site, which means his letter is not just by some ordinary Joe, but as the representative of his blog. He includes it to add to his credibility. But while he personally refrains from bashing Bill, he links to a site that does it in the most mean-spirited and juvenile way possible, which TVE rightly described as giving "tacit approval" to that content. If Bill knows FJM or happens to read a little bit of it, is it surprising that he would respond in an equally, or more, jackasstastic way?

I'm not remotely defending Conlin. Simply because someone else wants to roll around in the mud doesn't mean you have to join them. There would be consequences if he were my employee.

I'm just saying that, as Swedish Chef put it, we seem to want to have our cake and eat it too. (Though that expression has always puzzled me. Who would want a cake if you couldn't eat it?).

I'm just saying that, as Swedish Chef put it, we seem to want to have our cake and eat it too. (Though that expression has always puzzled me. Who would want a cake if you couldn't eat it?).

To throw it in someone's face, of course!

He's obviously threatened by the baseball bloggers

Is he? I'd guess more like annoyed, as in he wouldn't care about your or my or Crashburn Alley's opinion as long as we didn't bother him with it. He's an old, pompous, hypertensed fatass. And he made a poor choice of words.

And, because he did, some people are going to jump on him for it. The way of the world, I suppose.

To throw it in someone's face, of course!

Well, from my extensive experience at circus performances and from watching old Game of the Week broadcasts on NBC, I thought pies were much more thrower-friendly than cakes.

I think that if bloggers and posters want their opinions to be taken seriously, as a great many of us do, then we have to be accountable for not just what we write, but what we endorse (and for the record, I believe John is).

Look at the first e-mail Bill sends Conlin. In the first paragraph he identifies himself as a blogger and his site, which means his letter is not just by some ordinary Joe, but as the representative of his blog. He includes it to add to his credibility. But while he personally refrains from bashing Bill, he links to a site that does it in the most mean-spirited and juvenile way possible, which TVE rightly described as giving "tacit approval" to that content.

FJM's a perfect representative both about what's great and what's eyerolling about blogs. It's often funny, it's vulgar, it's great at proclaiming its own infinite wisdom and the cluelessness of everyone else, and it's snarky beyond belief. IOW it's entertaining if you take it for what it is, but it has about as much chance of changing anyone's opinion as Hitler had of changing Charles Lindbergh's.

Well, never mind that last comparison, though it shouldn't be taken as a criticism. Who needs another blandassed blog?

But I do have to question the lack of common sense in providing that link, with its "shitty assplug" references, and then expecting some sort of reasoned and civil reply. Especially since Conlin's original column was more than calm and eventempered itself.

John, color me surprised upon reading your new blog that you even link to FJM on your site.

just a simple word search on their site returned 15 hits to the word "F*CK" on their front page alone.
FJM is possibly the biggest trash on the net today.

Did the Swedish Chef really say that? I thought it was Marie Antoinette or something. In fact, I don't remember the Swedish Chef every saying anything even remotely intelligible, hence the weeping laughter he brought on in me and my mom when we first caught the Muppet show when I was about 7 years old.

Based upon his writing Conlin is a bully, a pig and a wretched human being. Public humiliation is the least of what he deserves.

The people who constantly rail on FJM need to take themselves less seriously.

The people who constantly rail on FJM need to take themselves less seriously

The people who quote FJM as a realistic source of criticism need to take themselves less seriously.

FJM is garbage blogging at its best.
It is everything that is wrong with blogging and bloggers in general.

John, color me surprised upon reading your new blog that you even link to FJM on your site.

just a simple word search on their site returned 15 hits to the word "F*CK" on their front page alone.
FJM is possibly the biggest trash on the net today.

Heh. Well, I was the subject a full-blown 'scandal' at FJM last summer after I used the phrase 'clogs the bases' ("and Thomas’ OBP is blunted by the fact he clogs the bases").

Say It Ain't So THT...

It wasn't the usual context of such a remark (dissing OBP) but that with men on, Frank Thomas should be more aggressive earlier in the count when pitchers try to get ahead. After Thomas in the lineup was Aaron Hill (who was batting .265/.331/.443 at the time) followed by three guys with an aggregate line of .233/.275/.325 last season (it was worse than this at the time). Relying on these guys to get Thomas (and other base runners) around to score seemed foolhardy. 'The Big Hurt' generally needs three hits (singles most likely from guys slugging just a bit north of .300)/walks to score and these guys had nothing to suggest they could do so on a regular basis.

When I wrote that, of Thomas's 46 BB, he had been brought around to score six times.

Anyway, this led to a series of e-mails discussing what I had written with plenty of good natured needling between Ken Tremendous and myself over a weekend.

It was a lot of fun and there was nary a word of coarse language in the messages. It ended with this post:

THT base-clogging scandal takes turn!

Heck, if they sniff any of my posts on Rollins MVP (or the MSN article) they may have another go at me. I didn’t advocate Rollins per se but rather I wrote along the lines of it being a defensible choice in light of past selections and Rollins' season (30/30; 20/20/20/20; setting the NL record for total bases by a SS, playing every game, 40+ SB w/87% success rate etc. MSN asks me to use conventional stats due to their audience so I have to make do). I mentioned in an exchange with Bill Baer on TPoSGD that if I had a vote, I would've given it to David Wright.

My interaction with them was positive. Heck, I got absolutely savaged on Mockingbird and Maldonado Over Everything this year and was called a douche bag and a moron by Drunk Jays fan and I link to them too. I got to know the authors we ended up agreeing to disagree and they provide valuable feedback.

I don’t have to agree with what folks write or how they present it to link to them. If I’ve learned something from them, I’ll put up a link--even if they ripped on me.

Best Regards

John

I apologize for pimping my own stuff but Conlin has really hit a nerve.

No problem, Maury.

I apologize for pimping my own stuff but Conlin has really hit a nerve.

No problem, Maury.

Awesome!

The people who quote FJM as a realistic source of criticism need to take themselves less seriously.

Andy said it far better than I.

It's often funny, it's vulgar, it's great at proclaiming its own infinite wisdom and the cluelessness of everyone else, and it's snarky beyond belief. IOW it's entertaining if you take it for what it is,

I don't see anything else you say that moves me from my original point. If you're doing all this hand-wringing over it you're taking things too seriously.

No problem, Maury.

Busted! PWN3D! (Actually, Mr. Furtado asked me about it awhile back).

Hey, what's wrong with symbiosis? It wasn't like we were subtle or anything. (sly wink)

Touché ... MBS worthy at any rate. RDF.

Best Regards

John

I'm having trouble understanding why anyone here gives a rat's ass what Bill Conlin thinks.

John, you certainly don't have to explain anything to me.
I guess I was just more taken back that a scribe that uses so much religion in his baseball writings even linked to them on their site, giving them some sort of credibility .. (IMO)

Honestly, who gives a ####? Nobody really cares about this, right?

Hell, 2 of my grandparents were survivors of the camps, and I still this is the stupidest fake controversy ever.

I guess I was just more taken back that a scribe that uses so much religion in his baseball writings even linked to them on their site, giving them some sort of creditability .. (IMO)

Well, a favourite verse is: "Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?"--Ecclesiastes 7:16

IOW I shalt not take myself too seriously. ;-)

Best Regards

John

OKAY OKAY OKAY ... Show of hands... Who's career-threatening comments were more offensive - Jimmy The Greek or Bill Conlin?

OKAY OKAY OKAY ... Show of hands... Who's career-threatening comments were more offensive - Jimmy The Greek or Bill Conlin?

I though that the Greek's statements were beyond ignorant, but I didn't think of it in the same way like I did regarding Al Campanis' remarks. Unlike Al, I thought Jimmy should have been allowed to keep his job.

As for Conlin-Greek, I don't believe either comments should be career-threatening, but both deserve(d) a good talking to from management.

It seems like most people aren't seeing the "problem." It's not that Conlin mentioned Hitler, it's that he said that he thinks all bloggers deserve to die, which is a little over the top to be sure.

Tempest, meet teapot.

A) I'm not at all sure Conlin has a "job." I think he writes on an emeritus status, for little to no money, and if so brings in much more value to the DN than any small group of angry readers (or more likely non-readers.)

B) I'm not sure why this obviously sarcastic comment is career threatening. Surely no one thinks he meant this seriously. The thing that crushed Campanis and the Greek was their sincerity. Conlin's response should be to say, "Any nimwit can tell I was joking, and if these people can't tell that, then I apologize to them for the poor quality of education they received in this nation's schools."

C) Shouldn't actions count more than words, anyway? Has Conlin behaved like a Hitler-lover? I'm not just talking about anti-Semitism. This is what was so painful about Campanis; his actions were pretty exemplary; his words were indefensible. I do think 30 years of actions should weigh more than 30 seconds of stupid words, unless those words reinforce questions raised by patterns of behavior.

D) What does that any of this have to do with the First Amendment? Nothing.

E) Isn't the only lesson the DN will learn from this that they shouldn't print their columnists' emails? Is it our goal as a community to work to close off public access to writers? This sort of Gotcha is unlikely to cost anyone a job; it's very likely to lead to regulations against public email addresses at the end of columns. This hurts everybody, and especially hurts people like many here (though not me) who try to use those addresses to educate columnists/writers.

F) In the bigger scope of things, isn't a writer who never responds to his readers less appealing than one who does, even with vitriol? Why in the world would anyone want to write to his employer? What possible good could that accomplish?

In the bigger scope of things, isn't a writer who never responds to his readers less appealing than one who does, even with vitriol?

Absolutely. Just make sure they spell your name right.

...it's a rationalization that allows you to both fling poo and to cry for momma when you yourself get hit...

Exactly -- how can you take someone seriously when they run to teacher or other authority figure when the going gets a little rough?

The rush to denounce someone for the slightest violation of politically-correct public discourse, let alone a private exchange of e-mail, is ###### up. Do we really want to live in a society or by rules greatly restrict what is allowable in exchange, to the extent where Conlin's remark is "beyond the pale" as someone put on the other thread?

You're a weenie if Conlin's comments got your panties in a wad.

alex,

well, maybe i should take my panties off then, hunh?

because i got a problem when someone thinks i should be put to DEATH because i blog. something wrong with someone who really truly thinks - like conlin does - that people who are not certified journalists should not be allowed to write.

all the anti-semite stuff got nothin to do with nothin. the point is different. got exactly ZERO to do with jews. it got everything to do with people who are modern pahmpleteers - bloggers - who are sometimes anonymous and who are often against mainstream "thinking."

just like john, i got no education at all. but i got a serious problem with anyone who thinks i should be KILLED for writing what i happen to believe

and john is dead right.

and conlin is not just some old guy who wants kidz offn his lawn by ANY chance. just because he really can't DO anything about us does not mean that he isn't seriously disturbed

oh yeah - the guys at FJM really are a bunch of jerks. no question. really RUDE guys and NOT funny at all

Do you honestly think he wants you killed? Baseball Chick, you are one of my favorite writers on this site. But don't you think it's possible he was joking?

because i got a problem when someone thinks i should be put to DEATH because i blog.

Do you honestly think he wants you killed? Baseball Chick, you are one of my favorite writers on this site. But don't you think it's possible he was joking?

Or at least that he was referring only to bloggers, and not to bloggerettes.

Do you honestly think he wants you killed? Baseball Chick, you are one of my favorite writers on this site. But don't you think it's possible he was joking?

So, it's OK to advocate mass murder if the advocate puts a smiley face after the last period?

So, it's OK to advocate mass murder if the advocate puts a smiley face after the last period?

I'd hate to see you turned loose on the poor old Bible.

Christ, is there any curse more clueless than excessive literalmindedness?

I think Conlin crossed a professional line, but I honestly don't think he meant that bloggers should be killed. Not that he wouldn't be ecstatic if they were deprived of the right to blog, mind you, but let's not go overboard here.

Christ, is there any curse more clueless than excessive literalmindedness?

What Christ have to say about this?

For me, the bottom line is that some jokes aren't funny. His remarks were in bad taste, but pretty bad taste. And yes, lots of people on the internet are as bad or worse.

We all knew Conlin is nasty and prejudiced. It was just a surprise how nasty and prejudiced. Also, I doubt if his newspaper wants to be represented in this fashion. So the outcome of that, if any, will be mildly interesting.

I guess the other surprise is the suggestion that he feels there is an organized effort to get him.

Conlin's response should be to say, "Any nimwit can tell I was joking, and if these people can't tell that, then I apologize to them for the poor quality of education they received in this nation's schools."

The problem with this line of defense is nothing about his comment was actually funny, or even appeared to be an attempt at being funny. Now, I'm a big fan of tasteless humor: dead baby jokes, Steve Garvey jokes, what have you. His comment is only funny if you find the idea of Hitler directing the murder of certain identifiable groups funny, and I don't know anyone who does. If he'd said something like, "The only good blogger is a dead blogger" or "The only good thing about 9/11 was I heard they were having a blogger convention in the WTC that day," well, I wouldn't have found that funny either, but at least I could have identified the attempt at humor.

As it is, the comment stands on its own as not only utterly devoid of humor, but reflecting a mean-spiritedness and an unwillingness to engage his critics that speaks volumes about how the man apparently chooses to approach his job as a journalist. Frankly, I would find it disappointing if there *wasn't* a rush to denounce him. I couldn't care less whether or not he retains his job, but I've heard enough to know that his opinion is basically without value.

Christ, is there any curse more clueless than excessive literalmindedness?

What Christ have to say about this?

I'm neither Christian nor a Biblical scholar, but I believe excessive literalmindedness was his chief complaint with the sadducees.

There is nothing less worthy of all this attention than Bill Conlin. It's unfortunate some of us are getting so frothy about the whole thing, because I'm sure Bill is having a grand time playing the puppeteer with those of us in that group. Ignoring him would be a far better decision.

well, maybe i should take my panties off then, hunh?

I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

The last thing I think is that you need a degree to do any job. Licensure for jobs that could harm others, study for subjects that require it, but a degree don't mean much to me.

And if Bill Conlin literally thought bloggers should be harmed, or any other group of people, I'd have little problem with those calling for HIS head.

But that's the issue -- Conlin wasn't after bloggers, but pissed at a specific one and let him know it. Some bloggers, OTOH, are after Conlin and want to see him fired, silenced, or at least brought down to their level of publication. They're using his private exchange with a hostile blogger to 'get him' for the sin of poor baseball analysis and the temerity to disregard their work.

I intensely dislike the whole culture of resentment and revenge from whatever direction. If you want to point to the main engine of Hitler's genocide, it was resentment and revenge.

I don't need anyone to protect me from Bill Conlin, but people coming after me for holding the wrong opinion or using the wrong language are a definite threat.

Three questions - How is Conlin's statement qualitatively different from Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers"? How is it different from any performance group who includes that line in a performance of Henry VI? How is it different from writer, professional, public, or otherwise, who references that line whenever they are piqued about lawyers/the legal system?

No "Gotcha!" going on here. I just think these are interesting questions. If you feel the literary context of Shakespeare's line disqualifies it from comparison, what about the old joke, "What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"

How is Conlin's statement qualitatively different from Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers"? How is it different from any performance group who includes that line in a performance of Henry VI? How is it different from writer, professional, public, or otherwise, who references that line whenever they are piqued about lawyers/the legal system?

Jesus fricking christ. This is an imbecilic statement. It is different. Context. As soon as you hear someone say "What Hitler should have done was killed all the lawyers, you know, like they said in Henry VI" then you can compare them. But there isn't an immediate (as in, people still alive who lived thru this) connection to what has ACTUALLY OCCURRED with Henry VI. It's ignorant crap like this that prolongs this issue past where it should be long dead by now.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion, Lassus. Did you intentionally ignore my third question and the question about the joke?

How about this? How does this compare to the SNL skit with Heather Locklear as the chipper telethon announcer who consistently and cheerfully denies the Holocaust?

Again, I'm not trying provide justification for Conlin. I'd like to have a reasonable discussion about the differences, where the lines are (and should be) drawn and so on. That you feel they are different seems like a great starting point! If you don't care to discuss the issue, don't. No one's forcing you to read the thread. If you'd like to join the discussion, please grow up and do so without characterizing simple questions as "imbecilic statements [sic]" or "ignorant crap".

Do you honestly think he wants you killed? Baseball Chick, you are one of my favorite writers on this site. But don't you think it's possible he was joking?

This is a bizarre defense of Conlin. Of course he didn't literally want all bloggers killed. But it was still an offensive, disturbing comment.

It has nothing to do with antisemitism -- it's that he's basically telling people he disagrees with to shut up in the most offensive, inflammatory way possible. People who disagree with me should be permanently silenced. And it was only a "joke" in the most superficial sense. It's pretty clear from the context that the comment wasn't intended to be humorous.

And spare me the "political correctness" nonsense.

What do you call 1,000 pounds of Bill Conlin at the bottom of the ocean?

Half way there.

Three questions - How is Conlin's statement qualitatively different from Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers"?

In addition to what Lassus said, the character who uttered this was Dick the Butcher, one of the antagonists, with the line being good for a little laugh, but also indicative of one of the things one has to do to seize control of a society. It would be like suggesting that Star Wars proves that George Lucas thought that we should build a Death Star to destroy planets.

CFiJ, I will admit I spoke a little more strongly than was necessary. It was 2 AM and I'd been on the subway for an hour. My apologies.

However, the point you brought up was simply invalid. The "Kill all the lawyers" line has nothing to do with racial genocide. And it's meant as a joke in the play itself, based on hyperbole as many many good jokes are.

Also, to bring up that point is NOT to provide reasonable discussion. Is it not apparent from the way you ask your question that is what YOU think, and you want others to simply prove it isn't the same? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but you don't say "this is why what Conlin said is just like The Henry VI or the Locklear skit" and provide reasoning. You take a point, turn it into a question, and ask someone to disprove what you are obviously implying rather than just saying what you think.

I'll bite anyhow. The Locklear SNL skit was a clear joke brought on by the ridiculousness of denying the holocaust. We relate to the humor as a group because we all can see how ridiculous it is. Conlin was NOT trying to be funny. At all. He was clearly angry, and clearly it was anger that caused him to think Hitler may have had it right if he wanted to eradicate bloggers.

I'd like to hear how you think the Henry or SNL skit is not any different from what Conlin said. That I am definitely interested in. Unless you really don't think that at all, I guess.

I didn't laugh, so therefore Conlin wasn't trying to be funny. This is an interesting way to evaluate intent. Any crude or bitter comments on this site are fine--because they are funny--while Conlin's isn't--because it's not. Quick, hide the joke books, kids. It's the comedy police.

Bill Conlin is NOT an anti-semite...but he did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

I didn't laugh, so therefore Conlin wasn't trying to be funny. This is an interesting way to evaluate intent.

Turn this around. If you didn't know Conlin and you were trying to determine whether or not he was trying to be funny, how would you do so?

I'd say, "Hey, Fatso, are you trying to be funny?" HTH. (/Dial)

Re: #56,

Weren't the Sadducees the Felix Unger to the Pharisees Oscar Madison?

Conlin should have his kids taken away.

Conlin should have his kids taken away.

He would be better off having some of his meals taken away from him.

Maybe he killed his kids and ate them, given his girth and his Hitler reference.

However, the point you brought up was simply invalid.

Again, I'm not trying to make a point. Let me put it this way. Remember the long meta-thread a week or so that revolved around MCoA's hyperbolic quip about libertarians, and Dan S.'s offense taken thereof? This reminds me of that, in that we have a hyperbolic statement taken far too literally. Now, maybe it's different because Conlin's statement is in bad taste. Maybe it's different because it's part of an email flame rather than an off-the-cuff quip. I think those are all valid arguments. I was interested in discussing the point at which a statement clearly exaggerated for effect crosses the line. What are the mitigating circumstances? My point in bringing up Shakespeare's statement was NOT to equate Henry VI with Conlin's statement. I brought it up because it's a line often taken out of it's context and used as a ready slam for lawyers. Which is why I continued to ask not just about the line in the play, but when it's used by people whenever they complain about lawyers. Like, say, Don Henley in "Get Over It".

Also, to bring up that point is NOT to provide reasonable discussion. Is it not apparent from the way you ask your question that is what YOU think, and you want others to simply prove it isn't the same?

Well, I was aware that's how it might appear, which is why I specifically said, "No 'Gotcha' going on here."

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but you don't say "this is why what Conlin said is just like The Henry VI or the Locklear skit" and provide reasoning. You take a point, turn it into a question, and ask someone to disprove what you are obviously implying rather than just saying what you think.

I'm not asking anyone to disprove a ####### thing. I'm asking for their thoughts. I was actually quite appreciative of yours, beyond all the insults. Ditto for your take on the Locklear skit.

I'd like to hear how you think the Henry or SNL skit is not any different from what Conlin said. That I am definitely interested in. Unless you really don't think that at all, I guess.

I don't think "they aren't any different", as a matter of fact. But here's my take.

A) People make very cruel cracks about lawyers all the time. I'm not a lawyer, but I cringe when I hear Henley quote Will in "Get Over It", and I don't find the 10,000 lawyer joke particularly funny. Some lawyers probably do, and that's cool, too. But at any rate I believe Conlin's statement was meant in that vein: a hyperbolic statement meant to illustrate ire with a particular group.

B) Conlin uses Hitler as part of his statement. This seems to be the lightning rod, but then you have the Locklear skit. Sure, it was an obvious joke, but in a world where you not only have survivors of the Holocaust, but real live Holocaust-deniers, wasn't it in pretty bad taste? This also ties into Garvey jokes, Bush-Hitler comparisons and so on. There seems to be a definite line at which bad taste from simple bad taste to overtly offensive. This where I'm most fuzzy, and where I hoped to hear from other people where they draw the line, and how they decide where to draw it.

C) My own impression from the line was it was hyperbolic and in bad taste, and ultimately silly. But that's really it for me. I don't think he really thinks bloggers should be gassed. I don't even really think he really thinks bloggers should be silenced. It seems to me he was using a form of Shakespeare's lawyer line in much the way Henley used the actual line, as a hyperbolic way of ######## about a group that, in his opinion, does more harm than good. Personally, I didn't get a visceral reaction from the Hitler line (as Godwin's Law suggests, bringing up Hitler has become so common as to have lost most of its impact).

I think it was a stupid thing to say, particularly in the context that he did (a flame email). He deserves to be called on that, which is not something I would say of the SNL skit writers or Don Henley, or someone making the 10,000 lawyer joke. OTOH, some folks seem to be taking it really seriously. I don't for a minute think they are stupid/imbecilic/ignorant for doing so, particularly John Brattain, whom I greatly respect as a writer and Primate. I think I share their essential reaction, but not to the same degree. So, where does the line between simple bad taste and full-on offense lie? Conlin's statement was not a joke meant to make people laugh, but neither was it a statement made in earnest. My brain tells me it was a statement of a kind with "Let's kill all the laywers/10,000 laywers at the bottom of the sea is a good start", but my gut reaction (and the more visceral reactions of others) tell me he shouldn't have said it, and not simply because he mentioned Hitler. To be honest, I can't resolve that. I suspect it's an additive effect. Hence, my asking the other folks here.

look,

if he had said something like

- sigh
like i seem to remember shakespeare saying - first, let's kill all the bloggers

well then that would be different. that is most clearly ridiculous exaggeration.

but fact is that this guy actually really DOES believe that we have no right to exist. it kind of puzzles me that so many of you blow it off because it was in a "private email"

suppose he had said - hitler would have gotten the blacks out of baseball - in that email. would you shrug THAT off too?

conlin actually HAD an alternative - he didn't HAVE to read the email OR write back

CFiJ - I stand corrected on your motives. Now, er, I'll read your post. ;-)

OK, regarding point B - I'll go back to what I wrote earlier. It simply isn't the same. Conlin never attempted to make any kind of joke. A joke - even in bad taste (I haven't seen the SNL skit but it can't be too hard to imagine) contains in it an understanding of the ridiculousness of it. I don't thnk comparing it to Conlin's statement makes any sense, it comes from a different place entirely.

I don't think Conlin wants to KILL anyone, lord. Does he think he and his colleagues are above anything written on the internet? Yes. Does he have any concept that if he wasn't such a grumpy jerk who didn't realize people would actually care if he tossed out a genocidal Hitler reference he wouldn't be having this problem? No.

conlin actually HAD an alternative - he didn't HAVE to read the email OR write back

Moreover, instead of drawing upon radical evil for his inspiration, Conlin also could have said something like

"Eat #### and go #### yourself blogger scum."

or

"You ############# bloggers make me sick."

But, he didn't take this path. He relied upon the Nazi example.

Conlin is an anti-blogite.

What's at issue for me here is not the Hitler snark, which was stupid and insensitive whether in a public or private context, but ultimately just a case of typing before thinking. It's one of the unfortunate truths of email that it's much easier to say things that you want to take back the instant you hit send than it used to be.

The real issue is that Conlin said this thing in the context of responding to correspondence from a reader. This neither makes it more offensive nor less. But I see two salient facts here:

1. If he wants to be treated as an authority by dint of his position, the onus is on him to act in a professional and respectful manner. If he can't behave as a professional -- whether he's paid or not -- then he doesn't need to be treated as one. Just as adults should know better than to respond to the insults of children, professionals should know better than allow amateurs to get under their skin.

2. There have to be consequences from his paper, though I'm not sure discontinuation of his column is the correct, proportional response. You absolutely cannot allow your employees to show such blatant and mean-spirited disrespect for your readership, especially as a big-city newspaper whose readership is no doubt dwindling. These people are, ultimately, customers. If people don't read the paper, advertisers don't buy space, and the paper folds. If Conlin worked for me, there would be serious discussion of what to do about him between the editor, the sports editorial staff, and the publisher, and I've no doubt that termination would be discussed though probably not persued. He needs to be spanked, and publicly, for the credibility of the paper. The issue of whether or not he expected his response to be published regardless, he cannot be allowed to treat the readers in this manner and expect to get away with it Scot-free. It's as simple as that.

The issue here is not anti-Semitism or free speech or anything of the sort. It's bad customer service, first and foremost, and secondarily the fact that one of your top columnists doesn't feel confident enough in his own work to let amateur analysis roll off his back if he disagrees.

or even something like

- dear mr b

i am unsure why you would expect me to take you seriously as any sort of writer when you quote a group of people whose idea of humor is seeing how may times they can fit the f-word in one sentence. bloggers can't be considered serious writers or critics of writers until you learn that rudeness and crudity are not substitutes for intelligent comments

it that's too long, then - eat poopoo, you blogger scum - would be just as clear

I think voxter nails it. Conlin's responses would trouble me as his editor because of the open hositility he's showing his readers. I wouldn't have any trouble with a reporter/columnist engaging in debate with a reader - that should be one of the goals. But even if he felt provoked (say, he read the links), it wouldn't justify the kind of disdain he showed for a customer in his e-mail correspondence.

and voxter is right. i didn't think of it that way. you learn something new every day.

if you lucky and are willing to listen/learn

I also think it is incorrect to dismiss all bloggers because some are silly or inconsequential or vulgar, and if your employees are doing that, you have systematic problems beyond customer service. Just like it's incorrect to assume that the Philadelphia Daily News is a semi-credible right wing shill because you've read the Washington Times and found it to be that way, it's incorrect to paint every blog with the same brush because you read Fire Joe Morgan and their schtick is to act like ########. But that's a different discussion, really. I just don't think it's really fair to hold one person responsible for the actions another, except in certain rare circumstances.

I'd have a lot less problem with Voxter's take if it hadn't been for the inconvenient fact of that inflammatory FJM link, which was sent first---before the silly and equally hyperbolic Conlin reply. This seems to be acknowledged by the person who sent that link in the first place, which to many people not acquainted with the language of bloggers would be the equivalent of "fighting words."

And it would be an absolutely crazy overreaction to threaten Conlin's job over this, or to try to browbeat his employer into threatening him with Tim Page-like penalties. This is exactly the sort of PCish reaction that gives PC such a bad name. Conlin's intemperance was way out of line, but it was obviously just a heat of the moment thing. There was no threat to "kill" anybody, and we all know that. So why keep belaboring that nonexistent point?

Just chalk the whole thing up to experience, and give it a rest. We've all read far worse things here on BTF, and we've managed to survive quite well in spite of it.

OK, regarding point B - I'll go back to what I wrote earlier. It simply isn't the same. Conlin never attempted to make any kind of joke. A joke - even in bad taste (I haven't seen the SNL skit but it can't be too hard to imagine) contains in it an understanding of the ridiculousness of it. I don't thnk comparing it to Conlin's statement makes any sense, it comes from a different place entirely.

The thing is, if he doesn't really think bloggers should be mass-murdered, I have to take what he said as a kind of joke. Not really funny, and not meant make people LOL, but a joke, nonetheless. Snark, I guess, old-fogey style.

I'd have a lot less problem with Voxter's take if it hadn't been for the inconvenient fact of that inflammatory FJM link, which was sent first---before the silly and equally hyperbolic Conlin reply. This seems to be acknowledged by the person who sent that link in the first place, which to many people not acquainted with the language of bloggers would be the equivalent of "fighting words."

I disagree Andy. If I were Conlin's editor, I really wouldn't be swayed by a "He started it" defense. While I don't go as far as saying the customer is always right, I steadfastly maintain that my employees' conduct must be above that of the customer. If a reader seemingly engages in provocative behavior, that reader should be politely rebuffed or ignored. Taking a hostile tone (which Conlin surely did, even before the Hitler remark) through company channels is simply unacceptable conduct. I'm not saying Conlin's remarks were a firable offense, but there would be some kind of consequences for his actions here.

...just a case of typing before thinking.

Or, better, of being thoughtless in general, a trait, by the way, Hannah Arendt found in Eichmann.

That Conlin tipped his hand by linking bloggers to revolutionary pamphleteers only strengthens the case against him. It seems he's not opposed to pretentious bloggers but to free public speech -- especially to politically creative speech. If true, then I would say the claim that Conlin was joking concedes far to much to the man. So far as we know, Conlin may have been serious and only regretted his incapacity to produce the results he desired.

This, by the way, seems to support John Brattain's original article.

an absolutely crazy overreaction to threaten Conlin's job over this, or to try to browbeat his employer into threatening him with Tim Page-like penalties. This is exactly the sort of PCish reaction that gives PC such a bad name.

What makes people think the editor and publisher are more sympathetic to bloggers than Conlin? That they have the time to deal with every molehill like it's the federal prosecution of Barry Bonds? That they even see this as an issue of customer service -- are any of the bloggers paying for the DN?

Plus, it's Philadelphia, where rude is the status quo.

I'd have a lot less problem with Voxter's take if it hadn't been for the inconvenient fact of that inflammatory FJM link, which was sent first---before the silly and equally hyperbolic Conlin reply. This seems to be acknowledged by the person who sent that link in the first place, which to many people not acquainted with the language of bloggers would be the equivalent of "fighting words."

I disagree Andy. If I were Conlin's editor, I really wouldn't be swayed by a "He started it" defense. While I don't go as far as saying the customer is always right, I steadfastly maintain that my employees' conduct must be above that of the customer. If a reader seemingly engages in provocative behavior, that reader should be politely rebuffed or ignored. Taking a hostile tone (which Conlin surely did, even before the Hitler remark) through company channels is simply unacceptable conduct. I'm not saying Conlin's remarks were a firable offense, but there would be some kind of consequences for his actions here.

If I were Conlin's editor, I would've hired a much better writer in the first place. I've been reading this guy on and off for what seems like 30 years and he's a generic semi-hack. My type of writer is much more along the lines of Roger Angell, Bill James and the late Leonard Koppett, and IMO about 80% of the rest of them are almost completely interchangeable and worth reading only during commercial breaks.

But I also think (strained analogy alert) that a guy who walks into a 7-11 and waves a knife at the desk clerk doesn't have much standing to complain when he's confronted with a sawed off shotgun. I'm not arguing that Conlin wasn't in the wrong, or that the bulk of what crashburn wrote deserved that sort of retaliation. But that FJM link was juvenile at best, and crashburn has no reason to take offense when Conlin replied in kind.

And if Conlin's editor has any sense of perspective, he'll see that the infamous "Hitler remark" was little more than a lame vent and ignore those who would try to make it into something more than that. We can't tell people not to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by, but there is nothing that should require an editor to enforce these particular sensibilities on his employees, especially over an incident as trivial and overblown as this.

What makes people think the editor and publisher are more sympathetic to bloggers than Conlin?

They may not be in principle, but as a practical matter, they must be more open to new media than columnists, or they don't last long anymore. Newpapers aren't just dying on the vine and sitting there going, "Well, what can we do? Our product is superior and people want what is inferior." They're trying to change, and if management is hostile to innovation, they're going.

The Fire Joe Morgan link is no excuse. "They started it" won't fly. Bill Conlin is an employee who allowed himself to be baited into inappropriate behavior. The fact that it became public isn't really relevant -- you can't have the people who represent your brand treating their readership like the scum of the Earth. If he is unable to control his temper, he is fundamentally unfit to work in a high-profile position like the one he has in an industry that is in peril.

It is under no circumstances crazy to think that Conlin's job might be at risk if this is a pattern of behavior. If this is an isolated circumstance -- and it could be -- then fine, lesson learned, give him a talking-to, make him write some kind of apology to tack onto the end of a column next week. A real one, not an "I have Jewish friends" one. But a responsible editor and publisher must look into the question of whether or not this is something that has happened before, and if it happens again, the consequences must be severe. The issue isn't the Hitler reference, which was dumb. It's the absolute contempt for his readers that is on display that is the problem. That is unacceptable.

It is under no circumstances crazy to think that Conlin's job might be at risk if this is a pattern of behavior. If this is an isolated circumstance -- and it could be -- then fine, lesson learned, give him a talking-to, make him write some kind of apology to tack onto the end of a column next week. A real one, not an "I have Jewish friends" one. But a responsible editor and publisher must look into the question of whether or not this is something that has happened before, and if it happens again, the consequences must be severe. The issue isn't the Hitler reference, which was dumb. It's the absolute contempt for his readers that is on display that is the problem. That is unacceptable.

I'm sorry, Voxter, but it's a two way street. If a reader expects a civil response, he can't be sending insulting links in his original letter. Conlin didn't show contempt for "his readers" in this case. He showed contempt for one reader who forwarded one highly inflammatory link with no indication that the link's tone was out of line.

Now if you can show examples of similar volcanic responses of Conlin's to other, more civilized letters, then I'd agree that we had a problem. Until that's been shown, this is little more than a catfight involving one reader who instigated one series of letters.

By the tone of your post, you seem to be assuming that there's more to it than that. On what evidence?

Are any of you actually managers of real live breathing human beings?

Conlin, whatever his minuses, is a brand himself.

All the old newspaper writers from times past are rolling in their graves over this 'controversy'.

The response to Conlin is not something that will serve to increase respect for bloggers.

"What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"

I don't know, but I'm sitting in a room right now with Hitler, Stalin and a lawyer. I have a gun, but only two bullets...

I'm sorry, Voxter, but it's a two way street. If a reader expects a civil response, he can't be sending insulting links in his original letter. Conlin didn't show contempt for "his readers" in this case.

It's not a two-way street. This goes to my first point: A professional who allows himself to be provoked by the impugnments of amateurs demonstrates a lack of confidence in his own product.

If a reporter or columnist from a different section of the newspaper was responding to people who criticized him with vitriol and venom -- no matter what provocation they provided him -- he'd be in some very serious trouble. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The sports section of any given newspaper seems to operate under different rules than the rest, or to want to.

Are any of you actually managers of real live breathing human beings?

I own a significant chunk of a corporation that . . . wait for it . . . consists of a string of newspapers. If this happened in our company, my instinct would be to string this guy up, not because his action is so incredibly offensive, but because it indicates that he considers himself above reproach. Nobody but nobody is such a big name that they can get away with being disrespectful to complainants, not even a kinda famous sportswriter. It wouldn't fly, of course, but my instinct would be to can him to send a message to everybody else. Newspapers are not the playthings of old men who know athletes personally.

He showed contempt for one reader who forwarded one highly inflammatory link with no indication that the link's tone was out of line.

In this instance, a paraphrase of Jesus applies: Every reader is your readership. One guy, a thousand guys, it doesn't matter. Your attitude must be that something either deserves a respectful response, or is so inflammatory, arrogant, or out there as to not merit response. It's tough, but again, the man is being paid. If he can't comport himself as a professional, regardless of what the amateurs do, then he probably shouldn't be one.

Stalin takes your gun, beats Hitler, the lawyer and you to death with it.

Saves the bullets for later.

It wouldn't fly, of course

That was my point -- if you're running an organization, you've got too many variables in play to actually take the actions suggested.

If one example of rudeness, one customer complaint, could do in a person's career, you'd quickly go out of business.

By the tone of your post, you seem to be assuming that there's more to it than that.

I'm not. That's why I'm not advocating firing him. But you have to find out if there is such a pattern, because if there is, it's a big, big problem. And even if it's an isolated incident, it's still not a small one.

you've got too many variables in play to actually take the actions suggested.

Trying to find out if there's a pattern of behavior not only would fly, I would be irresponsible as both a business owner and a member of the fourth estate if I didn't. Firing him over one incident wouldn't work, unless it was worse than this one. Either way, you have to let it be known that your people, even the old-timers, can't expect to behave with impugnity.

If I found out without the issue ever becoming public, a public apology would not be necessary, though I think a private one would still be warranted. The guy wouldn't like it, but part of being in charge of people is accepting that you're going to have to make people do things they don't want to do from time to time. How the matter became public really doesn't matter that much -- just because a blogger kissed and told (or flamed and told, as the case may be) doesn't make the situation any less combustible in public.

If your guy apologizes, swears never to do it again, and doesn't appear to have done it in the past, it blows over no problem in a little while. If any of those conditions aren't met, then there's a bigger issue at hand.

ah, the internet, where bloggers and libertarians are as common as journalists and Republicans in the "real world".......seriously, though, people, since when is "blogger" a fundamental category of human identity like "black", "woman" "gay" etc? I think some folks are taking themselves just a little bit too world-historically...... I mean, I've had a weblog, and I don't feel personally threatened by Conlin: he's a guy who resents what he doesn't understand, like lots of other older guys who fail to adjust....you can't take his Hitler comment seriously and attempt to hang it on him unless you also go along with the dumbass thinking that imagines "blogger" as a noble persecuted status in some way commensurable with "Jew". And it just ain't. Sorry.

I don't know, but I'm sitting in a room right now with Hitler, Stalin and a lawyer. I have a gun, but only two bullets...

No bloggers nearby? Save the bullets.