Bye Joann

I was just chatting with another SF Metblogger who had missed the fact that in the comments of the medieval warming post, Joann had said she’s leaving the blog as a writer. I checked, and she’s deleted most of her posts too.

I respect the fact that Joann hasn’t appreciated the last few rounds of the game “pick on the republican”, and I say goodbye, and that I’ll miss her!

– She’s from Willow Glen/San Jose area and we need more representation there!

– From Joann’s posts, I viewed her personal blog, where someone had commented, then read that site and found out about the opening of a new restaurant: The Garage– and it is near my sister’s house, who had just moved here and was bemoaning “no good restaurants walkable in SJ”. Of course, if i had just waited a few weeks my sister would have told me there’s a cool new rotisserie in a strip mall near SJSU, but still, Joann got me there first! I got South Bay restaurant cred.

– I like the photos of random people she picks up at the airport.

– I hear that we’re in a bubble of similar political views. I used to commute out of state more for business and I didn’t feel it, but now I do. Joann introduced me to a few Republican pundits and I researched them, and felt more informed and at least now I know who these guys were/are, and if someone wants to argue about their points, I know what they say, at least. Problem with being in the bubble: we aren’t very informed about the other side (or I’m not, at least).

I’ll miss the debate- and I regret that it got personal. I don’t agree with your views, Joann, but I don’t agree with a lot of my people’s views about sex/relationships/careers, etc. and still call them friends, colleagues and neighbors.

32 Comments so far

  1. realsanfran (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

    I won’t miss her. I’m sick of outsiders picking on us all the time, especially those as dull and uninformed as her. I actually quit reading metblogs partially because of her (and partially because well most of you dont’ like our city and aren’t from here or live here!)

  2. Lauren (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

    Realsanfran: You quit reading it, yet manage to write a comment?

    And I agree that people writing for metblogs must really hate the bay area since they take the time to take pictures, do research, and write stories about living here. Oh, and when they write about their experiences in North Beach or Pac Heights or Sunset or Redwood City, they just prove what a bunch of outsiders they really are.

  3. dln (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

    It’s frightening – and I mean that in a very true sense – that people actually believe that the UN is conspiring against the US, and somehow on some level is an adversary.

    Joann, I don’t think you should leave, and I don’t understand the personal attacks. It’s is much more important to learn what alot more people than most realize actually believe in this stuff.

    It is fascinating, very scary, and very dangerous. Ignoring what’s happening to our country by alienating those who believe their leaders before they believe their eyes and common sense is not useful. If we have no insight into what people are told or not told by the likes of limbaugh and those who pay him to do so, how can we openly talk and change what is actually happening?

    Media is truly getting out of hand, to the point of absurdity, but shutting out those who still believe in it – for whatever reason, is not productive. Better then to engage directly and analyze facts together.

    We have to, because the loudest voices no longer have (if they ever did) the people’s, or its viewers’, best interest in mind.

  4. Ryan (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

    I do agree that sometimes liberals (and i am one) especially in SF (i live here) can sometimes tend to live in a bubble. It happens. But what irked me about Joann’s posts was that she also seemed to live in her own little bubble. And the two bubbles never seemed to overlap; imagine a venn diagram but the two circles are ten feet apart and just empty white space in between. As intolerant of her posts as many of the commenters have been, she always seemed just as intolerant of them, and while I do believe that encouraging debate is healthy, especially when us San Franciscans find our selves in our bubble, the internet has a history of “debates” devloving into “flame wars”. And while I hated every political post she made, her non-politcal stuff could be ok. That said, I’m not sad to see her go.

  5. rocco pendola (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 5:30 pm

    Hasn’t the so-called bubble formed around San Francisco because the people who call it home (or have and long to do so again, like me!!) have seen what lays outside of the bubble? In my estimation this bubble has developed for the exact reason that San Franciscans have seen what exists in most American places outside of the bubble (lack of tolerance for difference, middle and working class support for Republican ideas and candidates although they hurt those people, the notion that Democratics are actually liberal, etc.) and they don’t like it! They reject it. Many of us have lived it and even thought the way much of the rest of the nation does at one prolonged point or another. So, in many cases, people self-select San Francisco in search of the bubble; others end up there (like I did) and knowing what they know about the other places they have experienced/worked in/grown up in, they become firmly entrenched in the mindset of the bubble.

    Simply put, if we lacked knowledge of the other side, etc, etc, would there be a need for/would the bubble have even formed in the first place? It is because of this it will scare you shitless knowledge that San Francisco has become a bastion of liberalism, distinct from most places (save pockets of other big cities, Ithaca (!), etc!!).

  6. Peter (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

    I think we should have more right-wingers here on Metblogs and everywhere because we just don’t know what their p.o.v. is…unless we read the newspapers, or listen to the radio, or watch television, or surf the internets, or…

  7. Peter (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

    p.s. what kind of crybaby stuff is deleting all your posts? i don’t like this game so i’m taking my ball and going home?


    but, really, i would expect nothing less from a right-winger.

  8. John (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 8:01 pm

    Joann knew that the majority of the people that live in SF and would obviously read this blog do not agree with her political views and should have had a thicker skin. What did she expect that she would not be challenged?

  9. TinMan (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 9:19 pm

    Bloggers are public figures on the Intarwebs. If you can’t take the personal attacks, forget it. No matter how thoughtfully balanced and level-headed you think you are, someone’s gonna have a burr under their saddle and make sure you know it.

    From my 15+ years on the Internet if someone bails out of an online argument, it’s usually because they lost in a “career”-ending, humiliating, indefensible manner in which they have lost all respect from their combatants.

    Did that happen here? I don’t know. The embers of whatever conflagration occurred are dying.

    I wish Joann the best of luck.

  10. cd (unregistered) on February 4th, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

    [slow clap] Bravo, tiny crew of flame-throwing commenters – you’ve won! You could’ve skipped over posts by people with whom you disagree, but no! It’s much more fun to take out your anger on a blogger. Wohoo! Field day!

    Joann – if you’re even still reading this, I wish you wouldn’t let them get you down. Even if/when I disagree with your policy/political views, I still like having you represent yourself and other views and other parts of the Bay Area.

    As for growing a thicker-skin or the merits of being a stronger blogger – for f-ck sake, there’s a limit to how much a person feels like putting up with, I’m sure. When the same 4 or 5 people just can’t contain themselves or at least direct their ire at the real bad guys out there, why would anyone want to continue.

    Sad commentary, in so many ways.

  11. Lauren (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 12:20 am

    CD: What you are saying goes against what we are trying to promote on metblogs: discussion. You are telling readers to ignore a post they don’t like? These posts are supposed to spark discussion. And if a poster can’t handle the comments on a post, then that poster needs to change the type of posts or leave.

    Readers: comment alway! This is what it is all about. You have a voice and you are using it.

  12. Chester (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 3:16 am

    For me, it was not a matter of her opinions, much less her general political orientation. My issue with Joann’s political posts were that they were simply very, very bad.

    They were bad because they were generally snide and inflammatory in tone. They were bad because they were composed of comically-obvious piles of logical fallacies. And they were bad because any time I took the effort to show Joann, point by point, how her “arguments” were fallacious, she refused to respond in kind and, instead, responded back with even more fallacious argument.

    So this was not about a Bay Area conservative being picked on by Bay Area liberals. This was about people debating issues that she herself put on the table for discussion. And it was about her being unable to defend her point of view. Which, apparently, frustrated her to the point where she decided to exit the discussion entirely.

    I’m sure the ad hominem attacks played a part — maybe even a major part. That’s unfortunate and those arguments were stupid. Joann’s political arguments were bad because they simply were bad, not because of what formal education she may or may not have had or what her job may or may not be. People ought to think things through before making statements like that, as all they do is reinforce the bullshit stereotype of the elitist liberal. It gives her the excuse of leaving the site feeling like she’s some sort of victimized martyr.

    And I don’t think she should’ve left the site. Her local color material was usually interesting. Her perspective is very unique. And she was one of the few authors who covered South Bay stuff. It’s too bad she feels the need to leave completely.

  13. Chester (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 3:27 am

    Also: it’s too bad that Joann’s “I’m Gone!” post was removed. Despite the unfortunate nature of the situation in general, the deep irony of how closely that post paralleled a particular “farewell” speech by Nixon was pretty amusing.

  14. cd (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 8:27 am

    Lauren: discussion is one thing – calling someone stupid is another. Disagreeing with a point, a policy preference, a political stance – hell, rant away. Again, calling someone stupid is not a reasoned argument.

    We all fall prey to the temptation every so often and say things in comments we’d never say to someone’s face. But if that becomes your only way of expressing yourself, then take it somewhere else. I’ve been writing for MetBlog from just about the moment the sisters were launched and I don’t think asking people to stop being assholes to bloggers or to each other goes against the MB mission.

  15. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 8:39 am

    If I did answerer, or by now even care, I would say something about: The Scientific Method. Three steps are involved:
    One, observe a phenomenon.
    Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
    Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
    If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth.

    Every global warming item stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ‘It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.’ This is a common *FALLACY in logic known as ‘Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc’ (After it, therefore caused by it) which is invalid.

    Global warming has become an industry, and a cause to bring along followers. Al Gore was in San Jose to help push it on us all, but none of you, highly educated people wanted to even debate this fact or the fact that possibly you are being fed a perceivable bill of goods. Nope, I’m stupid you are right end of your discussion on the matter.

    If this were to continue I do not think I could take Chester’s charge of *fallacy even one more time. Chester could it be you just have a difficult time understanding concepts not fed to you by socialists? Yes, I picked up the ball and left the game. Not because I was intimidated, but because how do you play when there are no rules.

  16. Asa (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 9:01 am

    I think Joann’s post immediately above illustrates perfectly Chester’s point. Chester explained in detail the problems he had with Joann’s posts. Joann responds with the snide question, “Chester could it be you just have a difficult time understanding concepts not fed to you by socialists?” That’s showing him, Joann!

    Joann, I have no problem with you espousing your point of view, but if you can’t handle others disagreeing with you, you shouldn’t be blogging.

  17. rocco pendola (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 9:05 am

    TheScientific Method. Three steps are involved:
    One, observe a phenomenon.
    Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
    Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
    If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth.

    I am both embarassed for you and laughing my ass off at the same time.

    Boy, if obtaining “scientific truth” was so easy… my goodness.

  18. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 10:36 am

    Prove me wrong, don’t just say that I am wrong. Rocco tell me your scientific facts. This is not a snide request–enlighten me, impart your vast knowledge on me. I dare you to set me straight.


    Never mind I’ll let you off the hook I’m sure this is getting boring (for all), and we will just go around with no elucidation on your part, or mine.

  19. Secular Progressive (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 11:07 am

    Its unfortunate Joann felt she had to leave. I can sympathize with her feeling put off by the negative comments. As CD said, we sometimes get carried away when commenting on forums. That said I think Joann should just laugh off those comments. If you listen to talk radio, people get very emotional there too. It would be cool if people didn’t always go for the jugular from the get go. I certainly feel I could use a lesson in manners. Finally, I think that even people defending Joann come off with a bit of an air at times even though I generally agree with them. My inner hippie says that we should all chill out there is enough war in the world.
    I suppose my biggest problem with Joann is that sometimes I just heard talking points. Yes, I know both the right and left have talking points. I can hear that point of view on the radio or TV. Instead it would be cool for people to talk about the fiscal cost of global warming from a conservative point of view. Essentially, asking what are the burdens of the companies “greening” their operations. How can we create the right tax incentives to allow them to make these upgrades. Honestly, arguing over whether or not people are affecting climate change is silly. Most of the scientific community is behind this hypothesis. Even if we aren’t causing climate change it would be a boon to get things running more efficiently. Another question that we have to ask is will the oil lobby allow such tax incentives to pass?

  20. rocco (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 11:14 am

    If someone else would like to take stab at this, feel free.

    In a quickly delivered nutshell- you are using the term “scientific truth” quite loosely. One does not “have scientific truth” simply by testing a hypothesis once and then proving or disproving it. It is a “tad” more rigorous than that in what I do – social science – and WAY more rigorous in the “hard sciences.”

  21. rocco (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 11:20 am

    and by the way, I actually have very little problem with your opinions re: global warming. My thought is that yes, there is a real and significant man-made component to it, but there is far too much uncertainity as to exactly what the effects/impact will be as the earth warms. That said – I prefer not to take any chances.

  22. sw (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 11:27 am

    Seriously guys, just ignore her so she can move onto greener pastures. The sooner the better.

  23. petrice (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

    Doesn’t metroblogging have a code of conduct for commentors? If it doesn’t, it should, and that code of conduct should forbid personal attacks–that sort of thing only drags discussions into the mud and forces people to defend themselves against silly arguments.

  24. TinMan (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 9:03 pm


    If you are so obvious right about the topic, why did you delete your posts?

  25. TinMan (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 9:09 pm

    Yeah, and in case it wasn’t clear, yes, Joann, I *dare* you to stay here and continue blogging.

  26. Chester (unregistered) on February 5th, 2007 @ 10:37 pm

    What the hell…one more response for posterity’s sake and because I’m trying to avoid doing work.

    Joann wrote:
    > If this were to continue I do not think I could
    > take Chester’s charge of *fallacy even one more time.

    I think it continues to be a problem with your thought process and writing. In general, I sincerely think you would benefit from taking something like a standard Critical Thinking course. Check out West Valley or De Anza. The experience probably wouldn’t change your fundamental viewpoints, nor should it necessarily, but it would probably help you understand political issues on a deeper level and would certainly help you discuss issues more effectively, even if only to advance your own personal opinions.

    > Chester could it be you just have a difficult
    > time understanding concepts not fed to you by socialists?

    Is that a real question or just a rhetorical point? Probably the latter, but if you’re asking, the answer is No. I’m no genius, but I think it has been pretty clear in all our exchanges that my comprehension of the issues discussed is not an issue itself, with the opposite being amply evident.

    > Yes, I picked up the ball and left the game. Not
    > because I was intimidated, but because how do
    > you play when there are no rules.

    There are rules. Logic is inherently rife with rules. Personal attacks are, for example, against the rules in that they are often irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

    But if you want people to play by the rules of fair and productive conversation, you need to follow those rules too. That means responding to counterpoints to your arguments and not ignoring them and, instead, reaching for tangential arguments and red herrings to cover up your refusal to directly respond to specific critiques of your thinking.

    Again: I disagree with your political stance in general, but my real problem with your political pieces have been that they’re not really about informing people so much as they are about you taking the opportunity to air your personal biases with little attempt to actually justify them in any cogent way.

    But this has all been said many times before. Good luck with whatever you decide to do in terms of writing.

  27. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 6th, 2007 @ 2:13 am

    It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.
    -Robert Green Ingersoll

      or–Yes, there may be better ways to convey my message, but in the end what does it have to do with old Al Gore being the source of all this hot air?

  28. Chester (unregistered) on February 6th, 2007 @ 3:31 am

    Ack. It’s hopeless.

    Your use of that quote is called a “false dilemma”. You’re pretending as if the choice before you is one between informal common sense and senseless formalism. But the real choice is: you trying/learning how to make logical arguments versus your continuing to put forth the illogical polemics that have been your stock and trade thus far.

    Furthermore, the quote talks about common sense and education as if you must choose one or the other. But, in fact, they are not mutually exclusive and a person can have both.

    Basically, you have used a fallacious quotation in a fallacious manner. Or, in other words, you have exhibited a lack of common sense *and* a lack of education.

    > what does it have to do with old Al Gore being the source of all this hot air?

    Quite a lot. You might not agree with Gore’s arguments, but he will actually argue them in a logical manner. He will present evidence he has gathered and construct a case for why that evidence is correct. When challenged by those who disagree, he will answer those challenges directly. In other words, he will engage in a debate.

    You, on the other hand, have been a continual source of proverbial hot air. You present opinion as if it were fact, in lieu of evidence. You will throw out scattered, simplistic points instead of a compelling case. And when challenged, you fail to respond to those challenges and, instead, try to divert the argument in other directions. Or, in other words, you will not debate or discuss an issue. You merely announce your opinion…in the most uncompelling, unconvincing, and partisan of manners.

    Agh. Whatever. I should have quit this discussion a long time ago. It’s quite clear by now that you are:
    A. Too obstinate to admit your failures.
    B. For whatever reason, incapable of understanding that those failures even occurred.
    C. Playing stubborn/stupid for the fun of watching me type reams of apparently useless explanation.

    Anyway, I’m getting to the point where I’m going to either throw my computer out the window or resort to mean-spirited ridicule, and either outcome would be lame. So: if you don’t understand by now, I imagine you never will. Good luck with that.

  29. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 6th, 2007 @ 5:51 am

    #C looks good.

  30. dln (unregistered) on February 6th, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

    @Joann: If you go back to when you started feeling so passionately about global warming, are you not the least curious how that coincides quite nicely with Exxon’s rather large PR campaign? Or how it contradicts the scientists of the world? Yes, the world. Not liberals. Not Americans. The world. As in the collective intelligence of humanity itself.

    Don’t you find it somewhat interesting as to how you arrived at your adamant point of view, not being a climatologist yourself?

    I honestly don’t care what you believe, it doesn’t affect reality, but HOW you came to believe it is very interesting. And I honestly think it could be an enlightening experience to trace it back to the source yourself.

    You say “global warming has become an industry”. Yes it has, and it always was. It’s called oil.

  31. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 7th, 2007 @ 5:26 am

    How I arrived at my adamant point of view:

    “In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore

  32. joann Landers (unregistered) on February 7th, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

    Thanks San Francisco: Thanks ANNA for the “Bye Joann”, thanks CHESTER for your “help”, thanks ROCCO for helping me prove one of my theories, thanks TINMAN for your thoughts, thanks PETER–yes we do need to look at both sides, thanks JOHN I knew that I would be challenged, Realsanfran you need to stop sucking on lemons, thanks LAUREN –where did you go?, thanks DLN-interesting, thanks RYAN, thanks PETRICE–you know what they say about Sticks and Stones. Thanks Secular Progressive, and special big thanks to CD–one of the most level headed libs out there–and SW I took your advice I did move on to onto greener pastures, sorry ASA:

    My resurrection, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, collecting information about my environment and the events unfolding within it, is Metroblogging San Jose. –Joann

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.