Letters

Published on January 23, 2009

Facebook article assumed too much

To the Bulletin: I am deeply disturbed by the sensational nature of the article on Jan. 9 concerning the "John Doe" Facebook incident. You turned a very serious and complicated situation into a piece of gossip.

Let's take the headline: "Spurned high school student commits Facebook revenge." This is inherently misleading. It gives the reader the impression that the photos were submitted as retaliation and that "John Doe" was a student.

However, upon reading the rest of the article, it is revealed that there is no clear-cut motive for "John Doe" and that his or her "revenge" is nothing more than the journalist's assumption. In fact, a large portion of this article is based on speculation.

Instead of emphasizing the uncertainty of an anonymous source, the article simply takes everything said by the sender at face value. All that is certain is that this "John Doe" took photos from Facebook and sent them to teachers and administrators. Anything beyond that is speculation.

The part that I find particularly ironic was that you spoke about the dangers and uncertainty of the Internet, yet your article never challenges the validity of the photos themselves. Although it is very likely that they are real, tools like Photoshop can alter any image.

Daniel Hegner
Amherst

Insight needed on Facebook photos

To the Bulletin: I am a senior at Amherst Regional High School and was in some of the pictures that "John Doe" sent by email to teachers, administrators and many students at my school, as well as to the Amherst Police Department. Subsequently s/he has circulated them all over the place.

I read your article titled, "Spurned high school student commits Facebook revenge," and, frankly, I think you only got one side of the story. John Doe seems to be represented in your article as a victim concerned about her friends. The emails and other messages that s/he has sent to people in my school have very clearly not been motivated by care or concern.

In fact, they have been spiteful, vindictive and very frightening. In addition to simple harassment, John Doe has used language that brings to mind events like Columbine. S/he has stated that "Everyone hates me" and "This means WAR..." to name a few, and has suggested that my group of friends gets away with things and needs to be stopped. S/he has been threatening, mocking and taunting us. Frankly, I was hesitant to go to school one day because of the tone and language used in some of the messages to my friends.

My friends and I regret the activities we engaged in and posting the photos on Facebook and we have learned our lesson. However, John Doe is far from the good guy you depicted in your article, and the story that s/he gave you about his/her identity and circumstances blatantly contradicts information s/he has given others. We have no real idea about the gender, age, motivation, or state of mind of this person.

I wish you had made more of an effort to get the whole picture before placing this story on the front page along with a sensationalist blurred picture. The complete story here is not that silly, suburban teenagers drink at parties and post pictures to Facebook. It is about what a mentally unstable person can do to one's psyche, reputation and life while maintaining total anonymity, and how s/he can say anything s/he wants, true or untrue, and have it printed on the front page of the local paper.

Olivia Latorre
Amherst

Ready? Pop quiz

To the Bulletin: Having just returned from a morning run, I feel compelled to write a multiple choice pop quiz to the winter drivers of Amherst:

Question 1: If you are driving in the winter and see a runner or walker approaching your oncoming vehicle, what should you do?

A. Nothing, just drive by as usual, they will move into the snow or ice to get out of your way.

B. Lean out the window and shout: "Get out of the road." to startle them, or maybe add an obscene gesture as you speed by just for good measure.

C: Slow down, move over into the opposite lane and give them plenty of room as you go past. Maybe wave hello even.

Question 2: If as you approach your runner or walker, there is also a car approaching in the opposite lane, what should you do?

A. Speed up as you move over to beat the other car.

B. Just move over a few inches so all three of you - both cars and the runner/walker share the road space

C. Actually slow down enough so the other car passes the runner/walker first - warning, this may add about 15 seconds to the length of your trip.

Don't get me wrong - I love living in Amherst. But it's amazing to me how few drivers choose C for either question. Next time you see a runner or walker out there this winter, please do the right thing - it will put a smile on everyone's face and keep all of us safe.

Kathleen Traphagen
Amherst

Self-defense gone wrong

To the Bulletin: The opposition of the school administration to the closing of Mark's Meadow School (reported in a recent Bulletin) is yet another example (alongside those detailed by Jim Oldham) of the school administrators fiercely defending their own turf. There is more ostensible work for administrators when there are four schools than when there are just three.

But the fact is, Amherst must cut its expenses and in a large way. As I pointed out at last spring's Town Meeting, it cost $1,645,000 last year to operate Mark's Meadow. Elementary school enrollment in Amherst is declining and has been since 1994. The schools themselves anticipate further declines. Running four elementary schools, then, for 1,800 students, cannot be justified for 1,400 as there are now.

The alternatives - firing a lot of teachers and aides or re-arranging the grades among different schools will impact all elementary students instead of just the 180 (13 percent of the total) at Mark's Meadow. Amherst cannot afford to operate a quasi-private school at taxpayer expense. Better to eliminate it altogether and use some of the savings to hire more teachers to help the kids directly.

Nancy M. Gordon
Amherst

Not-so Golden Court

To the Bulletin: "Let us live in peace"?

This recent statement in the Amherst Bulletin caught my attention, only to find it was written by yet another tenant of Golden Court who is getting her information from other tenants who do not participate in the goings of the community. They instead use the tenants to form a negative opinion of the tenants who are working to make this a place where everyone will be treated fairly and without judgment.

In fact, it is obvious that the letter writer is not aware that reporters have attended board meetings and reported with accuracy the abuse and wrong doings of the Hadley Housing Authority and its board members, something the tenants' association is trying to solve. For her to say that "We have what amounts to imaginations about situations they themselves created" is down right rude and untrue.

I wonder how she would feel if she had been accused and charged with a criminal offense that was not only untrue, but reported by one of her "friends" and neighbors who went into court and lied under oath, only to be supported by and carried out by the Hadley Housing. This was not a concoction by tenants. If the writer does not wish to receive information in her door that has a lock box on it, she can simply say so to us. She goes on in her letter to say that she "resents the use of words like most' and several' but then in her letter she herself says "the majority of Golden Court Tenants" more than once, actually three times. Quit the contradiction.

I don't know of any tenant here who does not appreciate the many benefits the state provides. However, we do not appreciate the constant abuse, lack of concern, honesty and respect. We deserve above all to be respected and treated equally. This is what we "chronic malcontents" are trying to achieve and none of us is going to "move on" to please the board, the director or others here at Golden Court.

Judy Roncalli
Hadley

Out of line

To the Bulletin: May I express how out-of-line I believe the "My School Committee Blog" written by School Committee member Catherine A. Sanderson is, in its effort to push the agenda of closing Mark's Meadow school?

It is inherently unfair to those Mark's Meadow families that may lack computer access and/or technological ability to counter her often erroneous conjecturing. An example from last week's offering: "the vast majority of families now attending Mark's Meadow do so because it is their assigned school, not because they necessarily chose it because it is small. It is likely that some like the size and others would prefer a larger school."

I'm confused. Where does this information come from? I'm presuming a survey of the "vast majority" of Mark's Meadow families was taken? As a teacher at the school, I am there every day and talk to parents every day. That is not how they feel and the existence of such a statement is evidence of how this particular blog is being used as a bully pulpit to further the agenda of those involved with it. Personally, I find it appalling that an elected representative would take such an improper stance by blatantly espousing her opinions with little solid data to back them up. Aren't public officials supposed to remain objective? It's no secret that Ms. Sanderson wants to see the school closed. Question is: Is she willing to be objective about the process?

Another example: "I have heard from families at Mark's Meadow who are feeling pressured to speak against the closing but are actually hoping we close it and their kids get to go to Wildwood."

I don't know where Ms. Sanderson is getting her information, but I'd urge her to spend a morning in the Mark's Meadow school and find one, just one, parent who wishes their child were at another school. It's hard enough to make these tough decisions about our schools; we do not need to be browbeaten in the process.

John Keins
Amherst