Should I have taken issue with the fiscally conservative random rumor generator? Or is doing so merely enabling dysfunction?

The Carnegie Center for Art and History’s primary fundraiser next Friday (September 7) is a wine, cheese, beer and auction extravaganza that just might be the most noteworthy annual example of cultural appreciation witnessed in New Albany.

Accordingly, last week the museum and its yearly event became a handy target for the disaffected lunatic fringe, with breathtakingly inaccurate gossip and gullibly conspiratorial disinformation gleefully being peddled by a local blogger to a chorus of approbation on the part of generally anonymous and presumably embittered sycophants.

Ritz, Whiz and Ripple: Envious troglodytes point random disinformation generator at the Carnegie Center, demand full investigation of wine and cheese.

In turn, regular readers know that I swiftly and decisively took public issue with the fiscally conservative random rumor generator’s irresponsible innuendos.

But should I have done so?

If so, did I do it in the “best” or “right” way?

In short, is it worth pondering the extent to which we as responsible, thinking elements in the blogosphere – and, more importantly, in the community outside the electronic media – bear an obligation to answer malicious and embarrassing examples of the New Albany Syndrome such as those being perpetuated over the weekend?

NAC readers probably already know where I stand on the topic.

I believe that one of the chief aims on the part of those suffering from delusional dysfunction – remember, we’re speaking here of people willfully confusing an impeccably law-abiding museum’s perennial fundraiser with an entirely imaginary covert partisan political slush fund – quite simply is to grind down the energy of the capable, and to erode shared sensibilities and common decency by means of attrition and obfuscation.

In short, creating disinformation is far easier than battling it, and while I acknowledge the difficulties, I remain convinced that it is our responsibility to answer the fibbers and rebut their odious foolishness whenever and wherever it occurs.

At the same time, friends whom I trust see it a bit differently, and here are the comments offered by two of them.

----

#1
Looking at this "sturm und drang" from up on the escarpment, I can't help but be reminded of the old saw: "Never argue with a pig; it'll just frustrate you and irritate the pig."

I am fond of all your spirit but concerned too much good energy is being wasted in argumentation with people who refuse to acknowledge a shared, just, and common good but only want to argue.

There's a feedback loop here that is a control freak's delight, especially for one grounded in contrariness (because it feels so good, because it's an easy way to feel powerful).

How many data points are needed? These people are not open to rational debate, they agree to nothing, they will never be allies. Yes, it is sick and built upon hundreds of subtle misinterpretations that feed only their game.

I suggest you let them use their energies to only torment themselves and not waste yours.

----

#2
… I do believe it's better to mostly ignore the cyber-snipers and slanderers here. Attention is what they seek, so attention is what I won't give. I think their worst fear is irrelevance.

----

What do you think? The board is open for discussion.

And, I hope to be seeing many of you next week, when I’ll be pouring Progressive samples at the Carnegie Center's fundraiser.

Appreciate the wake-up call, Con-Dem. I might have missed it.