Of question and answers

In connection with a few recent conversations with Trueblat and other Board writers, I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Board answers questions. This isn’t too surprising; my habitual checking of the Board while I am within access of the Internet borders on obsessive-compulsive behavior. (I actually just checked the inbox after writing that last sentence.) But I’ve been thinking about the quality of answers we give and how our system works. My introspection started with a simple question about how some people believe that Jesus was black. I support their right to believe that just as ardently as I support my right to insist they are dead wrong. In this case, I think most people would agree that I am right. The day that question posted, a reader signing as “Dumbfounded” wrote to me and said my response was “amazingly ignorant and stupid,” and that “Jew” wasn’t a race or ethnicity.

Now let’s be honest: calling someone “amazingly ignorant and stupid” isn’t the best way to start intelligent discourse. I’ve had a few similar experiences in the past, and I usually get all riled up and go write something foolhardy and rude. I have since learned that the best way to deal with negative comments like that is to set them aside and come back to them when I’m not mad anymore. Sometimes I write a scathing remark as part of the cathartic process and then change it for the real response. That was what I did this time, and I think my eventual response wasn’t too bad. I took a few cheap shots at the guy, but it was more or less civil. My first response was much more immediately gratifying, and even Thor agreed that it was a great answer. But I knew I would inevitably regret it in the long run, so I was more pleased with my second response. (What I refuse to dispute was whether or not I was correct. I am right: Jewish can refer to religion, race, or ethnicity.)

Tempers apparently cooled on both sides, and a day or two later a reader named “David” wrote in. He indicated that he was “Dumbfounded” and meant no disrespect by his comment. (Why he called me “amazingly ignorant and stupid” when he meant to disrespect, I do not know. But we were both being a little rash, so we’ll let it slide.) David said he was Jewish, and proceeded to prove himself much more intelligent and calm than I had previously thought him to be. He did whine a little bit about how LDS people and Jewish people should treat each other better, which is completely irrelevant, but everyone does that (including myself) so I didn’t mind that part. I wrote back and reasserted my position and thanked him for his response. It wasn’t necessarily contrite, but it was easier to respond to than the first attack.

The debate over ethnicity and race continued, but I kept thinking about how I handled the criticism. I didn’t do a perfect job, but I’d like to think I handled it better than I have in the past. Probably the worst incident involved a case where someone gave me some incorrect information about satellite dishes and the question asker wrote me back demanding a better answer. He was none too polite about it, so I got mad and wrote some shoddy response. (I will not post a link to that question; it’s too embarrassing and it happened years ago, when I was a new writer.) The answer somehow got past the then-editor, and it posted before I could rescind it. I have since regretted the remark terribly, so I really try to be thoughtful and deliberate with my answer, especially those in response to criticism.

Everyone likes to shoot off a snarky remark. It’s fun, it’s witty, and it gets some laughs. Even professional writers fall victim to this tendency (Maureen Dowd of the New York Times comes to mind). But all too often I wish I could take such statements back after I’ve said them. One of my favorite writers in the zinger category is Saurus (I probably should say “was Saurus”, but he still lives on in my memory). That man has a way with words. I still sneak over to The West Desk every once in a while to see what superbly crafted jabs he has taken at people. That kind of answer represents the 100 Hour Board as it used to be. Saurus is one of the old guard, and I don’t know if he every entirely bought into the new user-friendly Board. We’re more closely connected with BYUSA now. We’re more warm and fuzzy rather than quirky and witty. I can’t help but feel that we’ve lost something that made the Board wonderful. But at the same time, I don’t want the Board to drown in smart-mouth responses with no content or substance. It’s so easy to fire off a quick response that dances around the heart of a question. What is more difficult is charging in and going the extra mile. The really good writers—Misaneroth, Ambrosia, etc.—are the ones that provide completely satisfying answers along with their wit. That’s never been my gift; I inject too much opinion and not enough answer most of the time. I guess that’s the direction the Board is headed in. This whole semester has been a non-stop stream of questions that might perhaps be better answered by Dear Abby or someone’s bishop. Even the political questions have gotten bogged down in opinion. (I include myself in the guilty party.)

I guess the issue of how the Board answers questions is direction related to the direction the Board is moving in. The other day I was talking to Balthazar about the good old days, back when we both joined the Board. It was new and fun and we felt like we were part of a cool little counter-culture movement. We talked about how much things have changed since we were brought on board. Even though we miss some of the fun things the Board used to do, I think both of us agree that the New Board is bigger and better. The readership has multiplied, the writers interact a lot more than they used to, and hopefully the new site will offer a more involved experience for readers and fans. I wonder if we’re still as helpful as we used to be. I’d like to think that we’re still useful and intriguing.

Balthazar is graduating this semester and I won’t be around much longer either. Like Saurus, the old guard writers will retire and the new generation will have to step up to the plate. It’s hard for me to imagine a Board run by the new kids, but I’m sure they’ll rise to the challenge. We’ve all got plenty of opinions and smart remarks; ultimately, the challenge is to provide enough substance to make the commentary. People chuckle at the sarcasm but they keep coming back because of the content. And at risk of sounding hopelessly sentimental, I hope they keep doing it for years to come.