October 9
...serving up your daily dish.
You'd think that by now (6:49 pm Saturday), there'd be some mention of Montclair's football rape scandal on the Montclair Watercooler. If there is, it's hidden in a message titled "Lost Cat" or "Re: 4Q Tax Bills." There's discussion of trails in Eagle Rock Reservation, flat tires and radiator covers, but no hint that news of Montclair's dark side led the New York Times Metro Section today and is speeding around the globe.
Censorship by the Benevolent Despots? Fear of bringing up bad news? Or does nobody out there care?
UPDATE: 10:32 pm Saturday Oct. 9: First post on rape case appears on Cooler.
SECOND UPDATE: Mayor Remsen posts to the Watercooler on the rape case here.
October 9, 2004 in Seen in Cyberspace | Permalink
I submitted a post about an hour ago, questioning esteemed mayor's idiotic comment in the Times, and asking him to explain what he meant-""Obviously, kids who are athletes sometimes go out and drink, but this doesn't sound right even for athletes." WTF?!?
Still waiting to see if they'll post it.
Posted by: latebloomer | Oct 9, 2004 7:34:49 PM
Perhaps since all the parties involved are local minors with families in town, the denizens of the cooler thought it best to let the normal legal process take place sans public gossip.
Strange I'll admit, but then again, *they* don't have ads to sell!
Posted by: Right of Center | Oct 9, 2004 7:35:49 PM
How impeaching that mayor? Is that being discussed in "Watercooler"? What a moronic comment!!
Posted by: GC | Oct 9, 2004 7:50:05 PM
Well, I'd say that the actual legal process of having people arrested and charges being filed would constitute more than "rumor" at this point, and would be worth at least writing SOMETHING newsworth about it. That excuse doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 9, 2004 8:11:46 PM
You're right, ROC, always best not to discuss the possibility that high school athletes might have used their sense of entitlement against people who are weaker. We'll just wait a few months or years until the case fully works its way through the court system, when it will finally become a topic of polite conversation.
Posted by: The Barista | Oct 9, 2004 8:11:51 PM
Looks like they're not going to post what I submitted. I think Mayor Remsen should be called out on offensive his "Boys will be boys, but this goes a little too far" type comment.
Posted by: latebloomer | Oct 9, 2004 8:27:42 PM
Plain text can be deceiving, it *read* to me that Mayor Remson was shocked and that he learned of the incident from the reporter.
Frankly, I am concerned that this incident shows a growing sense of entitlement and overall lack of discipline.
My thoughts go to the girl.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Oct 9, 2004 9:23:18 PM
No, it said he had read about it in the papers. His comments--the worst of which I posted above-- were at worst, offensive and sexist-- at best, inane.
Posted by: latebloomer | Oct 9, 2004 9:42:29 PM
Hey, they just posted it! And the mayor has already replied to me, basically saying his comments were taken out of context.
Posted by: latebloomer | Oct 9, 2004 10:36:41 PM
latebloomber said:
"I think Mayor Remsen should be called out on offensive his 'Boys will be boys, but this goes a little too far' type comment."
Well THIS was rude. That one little four letter word -- 'type' -- was the only hint that the Mayor DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY 'Boys will be boys, but this goes a little too far.'
Posted by: Gonzo Journalist | Oct 9, 2004 11:53:06 PM
Well, "Gonzo", if you'd have bothered to read the first post in this thread, you'd have seen that I did indeed provide the EXACT quote that appeared in the Times-- a quote that sounded very much to me like a "boys will be boys" type comment. The mayor has since replied that he was taken aback by the whole incident, didn't have time to collect his thoughts, and the quote was taken out of context.
Posted by: latebloomer | Oct 10, 2004 10:54:53 AM
"You're right, ROC, always best not to discuss the possibility that high school athletes might have used their sense of entitlement against people who are weaker. We'll just wait a few months or years until the case fully works its way through the court system, when it will finally become a topic of polite conversation."
Well Barista, I am not sure who benefits from a public discussion of an alleged crime involving minors at this point it time, so immediately after the alleged crime. If the allegation is false no amount of "if true" 's or "allegedly" 's or "might have" 's can undo the damage. If the allegation is true -- a public and, more importantly, *published* discussion can possibly make the victim have to endure even more pain at a very difficult time. (Remember, why did the alleged victim withdraw from the Kobe Bryant case?)
About waiting for a period of time before a 'polite' conversation. That is not my concern. However, I think it might be better for the parties involved, the investigators, the procescutors and even to community to wait a bit for a more *responsible* public conversation to take place.
While I am sure that will be hard for some to do, I would suggest the responsible thing to do is to report the facts alone. We should all be gravely concerned about what might have taken place and equally concerned that a trial (if needed) be conducted in a court of law and not in an online forum.
I take no issue with your reporting of the crime or the lack of discussion, but I do take issue with your assertion that silence means lack of interest.
Posted by: Right of Center | Oct 10, 2004 12:28:48 PM
"I take no issue with your reporting of the crime or the lack of discussion, but I do take issue with your assertion that silence means lack of interest."
She didn't assert any such thing. Rather, she invited comment on why the Montclair Watercooler, a forum where things like leafblowers and lawn signs take on the importance of national security issues, hadn't yet begun kicking the story around.
Posted by: David P. Powell | Oct 10, 2004 7:32:30 PM
What bothers me is the NY Times reporting of this story -- which has been discussed on the Watercooler. Talk about stirring the pot and sensationalizing. The "gritty street corners and hair-braiding salons" comments, as if one automatically goes with the other, was obnoxious, as was the assertion that "people in Montclair's black neighborhoods seemed to know much more about the allegations than their counterparts in the white neighborhoods." Seemed to know?
The icing was the streetcleaner quote -- what does girls in mini-skirts have to do with a town being a "ghetto". Plenty of girls attend private schools in the shortest of pleated uniform skirts. Some reporter couldn't resist including this quote. Also the theorizing about why/or why not everyone isn't talking about it.
Posted by: Liz | Oct 11, 2004 8:53:56 AM
I think the censorship from the Watercooler moderators has gotten out of control ... discussion list moderators traditionally kept the discussion "clean" (i.e. removal of offensive language, way off topic ramblings, etc) but at the same time encourage the sharing of information that best serves the group. The Watercooler moderators seem to disagree with this definition of sharing, and have created an over-controled environment which facilities such a narrow band of information. Thats too bad. But Watercooler's loss is baristanet.com's gain.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 12, 2004 1:33:42 PM
So quit your membership in the Watercooler, Jim! The Barista's gain would be no loss for the Cooler!
Posted by: Montclair Lover | Oct 13, 2004 11:14:12 PM
If u dont thnk that some parts of montclair are ghetton then u obviulsy dont live there, go down to the harlty block and tell me wat u c
Posted by: Luther | Feb 4, 2006 4:06:58 PM
If u dont thnk that some parts of montclair are ghetton then u obviulsy dont live there, go down to the harlty block and tell me wat u c
Posted by: Luther | Feb 4, 2006 4:07:14 PM
