What exactly is a Chamber type? I mean, didn't you ABH types used to have your publisher as the president of the chamber and you published and sold ads in their newsletter which you distributed in your paper. When you say Chamber types, do you mean yourselves?

"Snodgrass -- not his real name"

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was beginning to think he just had parents with a poor sense of humor! :-)

As used here, the term is a general reference to those civic boosters and economic development professionals whose default position is that any economic growth short of a private regional landfill, a prison, or a nuclear waste disposal site is good growth.

I'll leave it to you, Mr. Snowden, to determine whether the ABH fits that definition.

I'd been thinking the same thing about your parents! :-)

Approx. 30 years ago I was involved in the development of a major public recreational facility in a smallish south Georgia town. Most of the funds were privately raised but there was some small public expenditures involved. I forget exactly what, maybe road access. Decades before SPLOST.

Anyway there was a big debate at that time about the frivolous expenditure of public funds for an upscale and out of the box recreational facility.

Even at that time, the group with which I was associated was able to produce a study of what factors were important in attracting industry. On a ten point list, taxes and tax breaks were down around number six. Education, housing and recreation were at the top of the list. Frankly I was surprised by this (and if I recall, the study had been produced by C of C types). It seems that in the great scheme of things, for a major corporation, local and state taxes are a minor expense which can easily be incorporated into the cost of goods. On the other hand, losing experienced employees, especially senior ones, is expensive, and disruptive to the corporate process, and these executive types make life decisions based on the local housing, schools, and recreational opportunities.

The recreational facility was built, and proved to be a tremendous asset to the community, and an economic engine. I think of that experience and that study every time I see some local government give some company the keys to the vault, with no or little concern for those other factors which actually attract high quality industries.

My uneducated observation is that it is exactly these considerations that have made the "Research Triangle" so successful.

"The point being this: If you're one of those folks who feel compelled to interrupt the privacy of a letter writer by calling him or her at home, please stop listening to the voices in your head telling you to dial the telephone. If you feel compelled to respond, write your own letter to the editor. Or, if you don't want to do that, send me an e-mail at jim.thompson@onlineathens.com, and I'll let the writer know you're interested in getting in touch with him or her."

On the plus side, the comments are being taken seriously and this guy must have had some compelling words. The ABH deserves a lot of credit for allowing the comments and they have helped the public policy debate. I think readers, too, have learned how to express themselves more clearly and concisely; and many have become more polite and thoughtful.

Is it enough? Corporate influence probably outdistances that of the average citizen and it's easy for U.GA. employees, for instance, to monopolize the comment sections (when they have a dog in the fight). GA power, as another example, could do the same thing; political leaders can do it also.

Still, I think the net gain has been for average folk. Even when some control the forum, the other views can and do shine through.

Bad actors: The forums, because they are influential, can and are targeted for destruction by powerful interests and some people who are just mad-as-hell. No way around that, but some of the comments are deliberately provocative and cruel just because the posters would like to shut down the entire comments sections (because they want to censor opposing viewpoints).

The anonymous. Ed Tant is the ranter-in-chief, and obviously either has a job where he is insulated from blow-back or has simply decided to live in poverty because he thinks his commentary compensates. Anonymity, though, not only protects posters -- who'd be fired if their employers knew who they were -- but also allow some very valuable information to come into the popular discussion. In addition, those in journalism -- who have stable jobs -- have a reliable forum in which to retaliate against the humiliations, lies, and what-not that get thrown at them; anonymous posters, though, are for the most part denied that. A good example is that of an educator who was thrown off the editorial page when he disagreed with the authorities at the ABH.

Anonymity has been a tradition of public writing for a long time. I have no idea how many people knew the real name of the original TJS, but I do know that he assumed some of his names out of real, live fear. I'm not afraid of violence, but I am afraid of people who are convinced they are right and I'm wrong.

I will cheerfully offer my opinions under my phone book name when they are unassailable (and have done so several times over the years), but the stuff I write here is less fully formed, or so out of touch with the mainstream that I could spend the rest of my life trying to explain to those who won't listen why I said what I said. I prefer to let my comments here stand on their own merit, or lack thereof. It's up to the reader to make of them what they will. I don't care to engage in extended debate, since I can usually only preach to the choir - the rest of the congregation is sleeping, or coloring in the letters in the program, since they've already been saved.

I do appreciate the freedom on the AB-H site to say what I want, and in return I try to stay respectful in my comments. It's a pity some others won't do the same.

Finally, Jim, rest assured that even though I've had letters have been published in the AJC, on NPR and in the Gay City News, I'll always think of the AB-H first.

is that of an educator who was thrown off the editorial page when he disagreed with the authorities at the ABH."

Your reference above, A Reader, is of course to Steve Sacco, a Clarke Middle School teacher who wrote opinion columns for us for a while.

On that subject, let me first say this: Getting a regular spot on the editorial page is not a guarantee that the space is retained in perpetuity. Our lineup of columnists is changed on a regular basis, for any number of reasons: a writer may lose interest; editors here may determine that it's simply time for a change; readers may ask for a new columnist to appear on our pages, and we have to eliminate an existing column to make room.

In Sacco's case, the editors had become frustrated that he had begun to use his column almost exclusively to offer criticism -- some informed, some not so much -- of how our reporters and editors were allegedly mishandling news stories and misinterpreting events on our opinion pages. Rather than do Sacco the discourtesy of showing up in his classroom to heckle him -- the functional equivalent of what he was doing to us -- we simply opted to discontinue our relationship with him.

While we did get some criticism for dropping Sacco's column, most everyone has moved on in the months, now stretching into years, since Sacco was dropped.

In re-reading my post I realized it was confusing because I was trying to legitimize the anonymous poster; Sacco was not anonymous. If you have a berth on the editorial page using your real name, then you can address what I described as "humiliations, lies, and whatnot" that get thrown at you. When that spot is taken away you cannot respond; and in that particular case I think the censorship was untoward.

Coming from someone who worked in education perhaps the ABH failed to recognize or appreciate the value of those comments or the very real peril they imposed on the writer. (How many other insiders do you have taking such bold stances even with their employer looking on?) What's more it seems to argue that the ABH is ignorant of the immensity of politics in the public school system(s) and the relative ease with which these systems can get rid of any teacher.

The John Osborne case, as an example, was a red herring. He was a popular principal with lots of political support in the community. Even so, it was practically a miracle that he survived the ouster attempt. And as you know, his boss cited his comments in your paper. I make this point to underline the mechanism that preserves many public schools as close-minded bastions of dated, staid ideas. And yes, there is in fact a link between this environment and the fact that they fail so many of their students. The case of the facebook teacher, too, highlights an almost irrational fear of controversy and the tried-and-true method of extinguishing it.

As for those who post anonymously, I listed some of the merits of that as sort of a defense against some who use the same thing to discredit such posts. I wanted to point-out that not everyone can post using their real name but realize some will always say they could do so if they "weren't afraid." Well, real people are afraid of losing their jobs, their homes and the ability to care for their families. That's not to say I don't admire those who throw caution to the wind; their sincerity is overdone, though, in some cases. That's particularly true if they have a stable forum from which to respond which is denied to others.

Of course, in the larger view the comments are something of a recent experiment that produce previously unknown results and the experience continues to evolve. It's quite easy to err, from the cheap seats, in favor of open discussions (and I always will). I'd imagine the various legal challenges could even end such comments and that would be a big turn for the worse and probably reintroduce a new, or perhaps the old, repression of opposing viewpoints. In the best cases editors ought to be completely neutral and present submitted ideas in the most persuasive and compelling manner possible. In the end, the power to persuade is the only thing that matters; those columnists and posters who fail to recognize this simultaneously retard their own ability to influence the debate.