I was surprised that no one took Dianne Williamson to task for using the adjective “cursed” when describing Haiti.  (See second paragraph down.)  At least Pat Robertson cited a deal with the devil.

When I read the title of today’s column (which perhaps I am a touch sensitive about, since I am a somewhat anonymous blogger), I thought she would instead discuss the comments to Clive MacFarlane’s column about the continuing public records battle between the city and the T&G.  According to some of those anonymous commenters (whose remarks have since been removed), Clive has a vendetta against Officer Rojas, because Rojas arrested Clive for drunken and disorderly conduct by Rojas in the wee hours of some January morning in 2004, and then Clive had the arrest expunged from the court record, though if someone wanted to look at the arrest records, they could get them from the Worcester PD.  (Again, all of this is according to the extremely unreliable anonymous commenters.  I really don’t care what may or may not have happened, and if Clive has indeed been arrested by Rojas, he’s in good company.)

If Dianne were so concerned about the anonymous attacks on someone, why not lobby to change the policies on, where people can feel free to spew all sorts of garbage about the nearest convenient person?  Why not take the Telegram to task for promoting the most commented articles on the front page of their website?  As long as traditional media continues to give people an outlet to attack others from behind pseudonyms and with no accountability, I will refuse to take seriously their complaints about anonymous attacks.