In the past, I've ranted and raved about how people think only in absolutes. A few threads down on the Battle of Bill Lynn thread, I've been accused of this myself.
Here's the problem as I see it. A blogger says something positive or negative about something, and is then categorized based on that. For example, I have defended Craig Malin on some issues. Because of that, I'm instantly labeled as a Craig Malin-lover. People speak as though I don't see any mistakes or faults of the man. Its not true, but since I defend him, I'm lumped into that "black or white" category. Sometimes there's no need for me to point out mistakes he's made, such as the recent Judge sneaking-around, because there are already 2000 people pointing that out. Other times, like with his whole "I'll give the raise to charity" thing, I've come right out and said it was foolish.
Another recent example is the Guardian Angels. I've been fairly critical of the idea because of the physical interventions. So of course I must hate Guardian Angels. However, I do not hate the GAs. In fact, I see some positives to it, and I've even mentioned them. They have energized people about protecting their neighborhoods in a way that the existing neighborhood groups have been unable to do, which is definitely a good thing. I'm not going to claim that I'm a GA supporter, but that doesn't mean I'm cheering for them to fail either.
There IS a middle ground on nearly every subject, but it seems to be missing from most online discussion.
Here's the experiment for this thread. Long time readers will recognize that I've tried this before. If you comment on this thread, no matter what you say, you need to include something from the other viewpoint. If you point out that the Skybridge is stupid, you have throw in something good about it, such as its popularity among visitors. If you want to post how much you like French Silk Pie, mention a negative (zillions of calories) as well.
I will delete posts, on this thread only, that do not follow this formula, so if you insist on being all negative (or positive, rare as that is) I'm posting an Open Thread above this one.
I'll start things off:
I have been generally displeased with Bill Lynn's words and actions since the last election, but on the other hand, he was one of the first Alderman to have a website. He was online long before Frink and Hamerlinck were even Aldermen, much less had blogs. Even better, he has an archives of his past newsletters available there. Online access is a step towards transparency.