Dear Anonymous(es):
You shouldn't comment - especially anonymously - if you don't know the whole story, which you can't possibly get from this blog.
It's my life and I don't owe you an explanation, but here's a short one: I'm on unpaid maternity leave - not mooching off the company - and waiting until my life calms down and I can get down to Orlando on a weekday without the baby (difficult while breastfeeding) or with my husband (also difficult because he has yet to acquire any vacation at his new job) to hand in my resignation in person. I think I owe that to my bosses, and I'd like to say good-bye face to face. And, as for the six weeks of paid leave I did take, that's time I earned by working hard for two years.
posted by le @ 10:41 AM
3 Comments:
This is a commentary on the topic of anonymity and not a direct response to the entry, which I think was a rather graceful response. It's kind of long so skip to "MORAL" if you're just skimming.
It seems like there are a lot of people battling anonymous sabateurs, and I think it's kind of an interesting domain. Some people's responses to these sorts of attacks have been to bar anonymous comments; I don't agree with this approach personally because I think it goes against the spirit of the whole community to bar anonymity. I guess the thing that I would be curious to know is whether these comments come from people who always post on your blog anonymously (i.e., whether or not the comment would be perceived as negative), or if they are actually your regular readers who only post anonymousely for negative comments, in order to keep from pissing you off.
This latter alternative is common in my field within the peer review process through which journal articles are evaluated for publication. Although some reviewers have a policy of always reviewing articles anonymously or always disclosing their identities, it is very, very common for reviewers to sign their names to positive reviews and submit negative reviews anonymous.
I think there is definitely a tendency to view this kind of behavior as cowardly. I'm ambivalent, because I think it could have some utility in an unselfish manner in some situations. However, if the aim is not to bring intelligent points to the table and is rather to use manipulative emotional phrasing to make someone else feel bad or look bad to others (as i'd say describes the first anonymous's comment 100% and the second one's comments only about 15%)-- I would agree that's fucked up. But then, that's a problem whether it's signed or not.
MORAL: The fact that you're anonymous doesn't make you an asshole, and the fact that you've signed your name doesn't make you not-an-asshole.
L- By the way, did you get my package?
Obviously, the anonymous posters work for the paper and know me, even if they're not regulars here. It's not cool, and it hurts my feelings more than if they were just randoms. I can understand why one might feel the way the anonymous commenters do, and I don't know why they wouldn't just talk to me abou it. I have an explanation that I would have been willing to give.
As an anonymous person who's been lurking since I read about your blog in Orlando Weekly, I feel I have to comment before you sign off for good.
The newsroom rumor is that few can reach you to talk about your situation because you've moved to Gainesville without telling anyone--which is evidence you have no intention to reurn. Sentinel executives discovered your intent when a florist tried to deliver Sentinel-funded flowers to your door.
I guess these rumors, true or not, are the reason for the resentment. So too (one would guess) would your reasoning for delaying the submission of your resignation letter. One would think that the advantage to you (in the form of thousands of dollars in medical insurance benefits) would be far greater than any respect you may be paying to your managers by giving the letter to them in person. Certain managers may feel decieved and view your gesture with cynicism. In the light of recent rumors, handing in a delayed letter of resignation would appear self-serving rather than respectful.
Reporters are typically anti-bullshit, and this would probably strike them as bullshit to the extreme. Deceptive, unfair, selfish, you name it. Especially in a company where resourecs are finite and raises have failed to keep pace with inflation. And the co-pays for doctor visits and prescription medication have outpaced inflation. And quality of journalism has weakend for the sake of higher profits. And especially in an industry where women struggle --often tragically--to keep up with with their male counterparts after they return from maternity leave.
Whether these rumors are false, true, mean-spirited or whatever, some reporters/copy editors/editors etc. resent you because of them, yet feel they can't reach you because your contact information has changed or don't know you well enough to give you their honest opinion. Or that speaking to you is a waste of breath.
Good luck to you and your family. I hope that whatever lesson you chose to learn from this experience is a good one.
Post a Comment
<< Home