Print Page | Close Window

Hey Dan! That's Not How This Works

Printed From: Forest Park Forums
Category: General Discussion
Forum Name: Media Discussions
Forum Discription: A place to talk Review, Post, Local News coverage
URL: http://forestparkforums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4970
Printed Date: 16/January/2018 at 9:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Hey Dan! That's Not How This Works
Posted By: watcher
Subject: Hey Dan! That's Not How This Works
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 11:28am
That's not how ANY of this works!

In the run-up to the election,FoPa Watcher, my Facebook verified account, was blocked by the Review in response to complaints from David Webb/Observer (and undoubtedly several other nyms prior to FB verification being required).

No biggie, I did the same here to several accounts. After the election I unblocked those accounts. I had hoped that by limiting the noise, some other members would feel safe to post their thoughts. That didn't happen. Atrophy? Relocation? FB,Reddit, Topix,Twitter,Instagram,Snapchat habits/ addictions?

I readily admit that this style of forum is drowned out by the new toys/apps. I also believe this to be a far superior platform for the exchange of ideas, so it remains waiting to be rediscovered/reinvented.

Just look at the Review comments section to see the real limitations and problems.

Here, people are allowed to register/use their own REAL name, they can also pick a screenname under which to post their thoughts. It's their words and thoughts that drive this place, so the name used shouldn't matter, right? Over time, one's online identity is developed and established for all to see.

Dan Haley and others don't understand why anyone wouldn't want their name on display with their comments. I can think of at least 5000 reasons. Fear is certainly one. Experience another. Privacy, security, uncertainty, ego,insecurity... but regardless of why, it's about allowing a combo-platter of widely based opinions to learn from each other. Words allowed to stand or fall on their own. Staunchly stating and defending one's opinion without the bounds of any hierachy or label other than what you put forth in your words.

You don't care who knows who you are? Good for you! This is the internet. As in life, not everyone respects boundaries. Who cares?
I do. Anonymity is everyone's right if that's what they want. It goes hand in hand with their right to have an opinion, belief, to agree and disagree. Names should matter less than ideas. The real you comes through what you think and say. How does it mean less or more because of a name?

The internet offers a method of communication that requires no physical presence, no meetings, no borders. That's how this works.







-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"



Replies:
Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 12:10pm
Yeah, don't you just love that 'david webb' gets to spout out about anonymity and yet he is a fake himself. Ah, the irony.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by piehead piehead wrote:

Yeah, don't you just love that 'david webb' gets to spout out about anonymity and yet he is a fake himself. Ah, the irony.


He keeps spouting about being banned here. He's not. He was briefly shut off, but re-activated and told so, after whining about it @ the Review. While here he had nothing constructive to say, but said he'd come back when/if he thought of something... evidently, he hasn't had a thought since.

He don't like our "rules" that he can't have people blocked. The FB people who befriended him have been disturbed by his activities and unfriended/blocked.










-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 12:31pm
Gee, what a surprise, not.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:

...
It's their words and thoughts that drive this place, so the name used shouldn't matter, right? Over time, one's online identity is developed and established for all to see.

.... Anonymity is everyone's right if that's what they want. It goes hand in hand with their right to have an opinion, belief, to agree and disagree. Names should matter less than ideas. The real you comes through what you think and say. How does it mean less or more because of a name?


Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

The reason, only reason I choose to post anonymously is very simple. I want any/all animosity provoked by my postings to be directed solely at me.

Do you really need to know, the identity of David Webb? He's there, in all his comments. Enjoyed reading many of them, intelligent, humorous, well-written, etc.... but the election is over, his candidate won. Should be cause for internal celebration, no? Is it really necessary to continue picking/kicking? Don't like the meaner aspects of his comments directed at Sharon (yes, know she's a strong lady, can carry her own) but what's the purpose? To what end?
Maybe he just can't let go of his negative feelings?



Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 2:36pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:


Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

The reason, only reason I choose to post anonymously is very simple. I want any/all animosity provoked by my postings to be directed solely at me.

Do you really need to know, the identity of David Webb? He's there, in all his comments. Enjoyed reading many of them, intelligent, humorous, well-written, etc.... but the election is over, his candidate won. Should be cause for internal celebration, no? Is it really necessary to continue picking/kicking? Don't like the meaner aspects of his comments directed at Sharon (yes, know she's a strong lady, can carry her own) but what's the purpose? To what end?
Maybe he just can't let go of his negative feelings?


It's more his hypocritical demands for full, minute-by-minute, disclosure of everyone else, dating back to his arrival in the comments as Observer. His brief, but empty visit here and the undeserved swagger he exudes in his ad hominem attacks.

It's a front, whether his name or not. As such, it is intriguing.
If it turned out that he's connected, financially or genetically to the PAC or its members, does it add a dimension to his opinions and critques?

He doesn't "comment" he offers his own op-ed to the Review's content. Does that alter his journalistic responsibilities? He says it does for Sharon...

How is that different than the posters on FPF? Every one of my public posts is searchable. The bulk of them are responding to tech questions or just idle banter. Those stand apart from meatier posts. Facts and opinion are easily identified. The Review comments get lost in the constantly shifting "features".

Which brings us to the Review itself which regularly publishes "Editorials" without a byline. The institutional voice? A pseudonym by any other name?

Which is the less adulterated product?





-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 3:09pm
logic, in answer to your question, yes people should know who David Webb is, mostly because he or she lies all the time as in making stuff up to smear some one.  There now appears to be two poeple writing as David Webb, the sysles are closer now then when it started but they are diierent enough to tell the difference. Logic, you and I disagree on just about everything, but I do not believe you lie about people to make them look bad, you believe what you say. 90% of what David says is lies, period.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 3:21pm
Jerry, David does not challenge my belief system but can appreciate his writing style. No, we do not disagree about everything.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 3:25pm
What puts me off 'David' is that he expects and calls everyone else out, yet he is hiding behind the curtain still. If the rest of us are out there, so should he. Put up or shut up (to him, not you logic).


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 3:49pm
Pie, pissed-off or not, I just don't believe it truly matters.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 16/April/2015 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Pie, pissed-off or not, I just don't believe it truly matters.
I'm not pissed. I just try and stay out of the way and out of the town as much as possible. Sad but true. Would move if I didn't love my house so much.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 18/April/2015 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

David does not challenge my belief system but can appreciate his writing style.


Style without content is worthy of appreciation? Form over function? It's better to look good than to BE good?

It would be one thing if any of the turds "David" has plopped down in the Review's comments were based in/on facts. Instead, it's mostly off-topic gainsaying and equivocations. Misdirection and diversion.

If it fools you, what does it do to less attentive readers?

-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 6:56am
Yes, do find some of his postings amusing, even on the occasion he's made fun of me, has nothing to do with being fooled. Thinking about it, I've been on the receiving end of very similar comments ^ made by you:) Can still respect your POV and admire your writing skills. Can one be a "wordsmith" and yet communicate nothing of substance?

On a lighter note, remember the picture I sent you of the little blond baby running around Forest Home, near the Druid monument? We're celebrating his 9th birthday today.



Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 7:40am
logic, i thought it was pretty funny when david recently re-posted a comment of yours over at the Review. i wondered how many cross-readers there are and how many said 'who/what?'
in any case, you were thought-leader for a day or two :)


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 8:49am
Didn't see it, often too hard to find or reference something if ya need to "slog the blog". Thought leader? only in my own mind, good you were amused. Know he's fixated on you, the election is over, why isn't that enough? The sh_t stream keeps flowing, maybe he can't let go. I also know you have valid reasons for choices made.

Jerry has posted to me in the Review, took me by surprise.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 9:04am
citizen, would also like to add, although he's made many attempts, David will never be able to marginalize you. You have street cred:)


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 9:16am
David was holding you up as the final word, 'see, even Logic agrees w/me' :)  prob on Harris/his music topic.
(thx for encouraging words)


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 9:32am
Quite an upgrade from being referred to as an old drunk:))))))


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 1:29pm
over at the Review, David wants some 'context' for Vox's behavior this election. some accountability. he's just askin' :)
we should run a contest for best reply. 


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 1:49pm
Well you can always refuse to take the bait, let him keep repeating himself, rephrasing the questions until he tires-out or invite him to a Vox meeting.


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 1:57pm
invite him to a vox meeting. that is funny :)
a lot of folks think Observer/Webb is more than one writer, think the style changes too often. not my theory but sure is someone w/a lot of time to devote to his/her 'investments.' like day-trading :)


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 6:08pm
logic, I meant to delete your name on what I posted to the Review, sorry. Citizen, I am retired so when someone pointed out somethings about David I went back and did some reading, it sure looks like two people, it's little things. By the way, these people do not tire out they just keep saying the same thing knowing some people will by into it. Now the David does have Chris to bang on he is going after VOX again.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 9:36pm
No big deal, jerry, I know you posted the same message here and on the Review website. Covering all bases, huh?


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 10:22pm
Logic, the one I posted here was for you, the Review was for anyone else who might want to check it out. There is a lot more to the story than meets the eye. As for David I do enjoy busting his/her chops.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 19/April/2015 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

There is a lot more to the story than meets the eye. As for David I do enjoy busting his/her chops.
IMAHO, jerry, think David Webb is the recipient of way too much time and attention.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 20/April/2015 at 7:09am
logic, yes I do, but I really do enjoy busting David's chops.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 20/April/2015 at 7:53am
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Yes, do find some of his postings amusing, even on the occasion he's made fun of me, has nothing to do with being fooled. Thinking about it, I've been on the receiving end of very similar comments ^ made by you:) Can still respect your POV and admire your writing skills. Can one be a "wordsmith" and yet communicate nothing of substance?

On a lighter note, remember the picture I sent you of the little blond baby running around Forest Home, near the Druid monument? We're celebrating his 9th birthday today.


Hope the celebration met his/your expectations. 9 is such a great age. They don't know everything yet and still want to figure things out. They have skills that lets them hear "yes" more often. It's when they learn to ask the right questions to get the answer and permissions they want.<g>

If my comments to you have ever been dismissive of your intellect, it was purely unintentional. I've mostly chided you to take a stand? I think we've managed to find common ground more often than not, and have simply agreed to disagree on some things. But who knows, we've bandied words on a variety of subjects... FWIS, that's pretty much what this is about anyway. Towards respect and understanding?







-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 20/April/2015 at 10:01am
What intellect? Know my limitations, who I am and who I'll never be, that's OK. You're more than a wordsmith, IMHO, your approach more cerebral, philosophical, even if readers don't always see it here. Though capable of higher thinking, some of what you write (especially on your blog) goes right over my head, that's OK too. Do reserve the right to express an opinion, it comes from observation, perception and sometimes gut instinct. Have never felt dismissed or intimidated, more allow yourself to be led, come this way, "thou knowst not".

Believe it or not, there are a few of us 60 somethings who never wanted to go to Woodstock:)

As for my Grandson, he is thriving. Diagnosed as being in the autism spectrum, they don't call it Aspergers anymore, he was attending a local "special needs" school. Though staffed with many GOOD people,(believe the school is geared more toward kids with behavior issues) after 4 yrs, much trial, tribulation and a hell of a lot of input, observation, time and attention from the school district in Naperville, he is now attending school out there. My daughter, kids have moved out of Proviso, other than being farther than I'd like them to be, it was a great choice.



Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 20/April/2015 at 10:26am
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

logic, yes I do, but I really do enjoy busting David's chops.
Don't want to burst your bubble, jerry, don't think he's feeling like his chops are busted. Other than a few obviously very tense days prior to the election, he's back on the horse.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 20/April/2015 at 2:16pm
logic, well you might be right but I don't think so, David is not back on the horse and now that the election is over David has more free time to cover the mayors gaff's.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 21/April/2015 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:


Believe it or not, there are a few of us 60 somethings who never wanted to go to Woodstock:)


If it's alright with you, I'm going to move this conversation into its own space to continue...

I'd prefer to stay on the FPR comments clown car and Dan Haley's near total misreading of things. Moreso the impact his addled thinking has had.

Anyone can make a FB account. FB has no particular interest in limiting access, if anything the opposite is true. Social media's impact is mostly positive, but the downsides are very real too.

Dan picked FB verification because it was easy, not because it was a good or reliable way to fix the problems his comment section experiences.







-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 21/April/2015 at 9:22pm
which way to Yasgur's farm?


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 21/April/2015 at 9:45pm
who the hell is Erik Shipsink/Lipsink/whoever?  
anyway, a couple of his darling Review posts were deleted(?) and i'm stuck out there talking to myself :)

btw, per Jean Lotus, the way to deal w/offensive posts (whatever that means) is to flag them. boom - a flag takes them down. not sure it works exactly that way since Jean left.
i'm slow, so i only took her advice about 5 weeks ago and finally, finally flagged an outrageously ad hominem LaLuna morning post.
i guess that's what happened to Shitsink's posts? Facebook and its cousins are so weird.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 21/April/2015 at 10:38pm
Citizen, Eric was a fake, maybe Rita but I don't think so. I have flaged post and they stayed up so god knows what the policy is. Watcher is right facebook is the worst, any one can fake it.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 22/April/2015 at 6:24pm
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

btw, per Jean Lotus, the way to deal w/offensive posts (whatever that means) is to flag them. boom - a flag takes them down


Flagging, offensive or non-offensive, punts the post to the Review's social media decider, and as you say leaves the other comments flapping in the breeze.





-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 22/April/2015 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

Watcher is right facebook is the worst, any one can fake it.


It's NOT Facebook's fault, it's the FPR using FB as their unilateral screening process.
Facebook is not a "verification" service. It gets spoofed, hacked and spammed more than ANY other social media provider. Its security breaches and deficiencies are legendary.

The Review's goal should be to encourage relevant comments and wider discussion of the topic and to limit the multiple personality disorder trolls. If a commenter uses only one FB account, the name on that account doesn't really matter does it? A lot of the problems are very Forest Park specific. Check out the Landmark and Journal comments where the participants actually manage to stay on topic with nowhere near the seagull problem, with some fairly obvious pseudonyms.

It's only a real problem when somebody uses somebody else's name, or some clever play of an actual person whose name is recognizable. Right now the Review is out of its depth. They either need to get a much better "policy", or they need to shitcan the whole comment idea and switch to an email Letter to the Editor format in which every submission is screened and verified.

The third option is to keep everything as is. It works so well...











-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 22/April/2015 at 9:15pm
i thought the FB verified along w/Dan's editorial was clear and doable. but i was an idiot.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 23/April/2015 at 8:24am
Logic, that would be if people followed the rules, which many do not. And it appears that the ones that keep abusing the policy on FPR are Calderone fans. That they have the balls to keep calling out others, is beyond reason.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 23/April/2015 at 11:03am
Watcher, I did not mean it was FB fault, I meant that there needs to be a better way. Looked at Mondays agenda, it appears that the village is replacing one of the parking patrol officers. I wonder if the Review will follow up on this story, I heard the officer was a little free with the use of his camera and was either let go or resigned. This was before the election and the village didn't what the story to get out.


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 23/April/2015 at 6:39pm
super-anonymity seems more important to folks - these days? i don't recall such vigilance on FPF, altho there were a few, and then there were the Calderone trolls, and then there was VH working to out regular posters. thanks, mike curry! 

what still floors me, after all these years and esp after the recent election, the Calderone Crew has never produced one supporter that can/will write at length or regularly w/their real name, e.g. LTE's, columnists, regular posters.  do they ALL work at VH???
and then they bitch/moan relentlessly that 'the other side' controls the media. please explain this to me :)


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 23/April/2015 at 9:42pm
The Review applies its new rules without updating their comment policy.

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Nowhere in their stated policy does it say that the Facebook you login with must be your real name. Nor does it

Originally posted by Review Comment Policy Review Comment Policy wrote:



Community
Comment Policy

Introduction

ForestParkReview.com is the gathering spot for people to talk and debate all things Forest Park. Welcome to the conversation.

You are essential to creating a vital and compelling discussion about everything from a local government's latest contretemps to a new restaurant on Madison Street.

But as in any genuine conversation there are matters of manners and engagement to settle. Here are our expectations for participation.

    Stick to the topic. Threads work better when people aren't wandering all over creation. And make your points succinctly.

    Be nice. No one likes to be SHOUTED at. No one likes to be insulted. This is intended to be a strong and pointed conversation. But don't confuse rude with strong on this Web site.

    It is OK to offer comments - both positive and critical -- about local businesses. In fact our resource pages are designed to feature reader comments. However, in fairness, we ask that if you have a specific frustration with a business that you contact the business owner directly. In most cases an e-mail link to the business is included on the resource page.

How do comments work? First of all they are posted live. This adds to your responsibility for what you are writing. These are your opinions. You own the facts those opinions are based on. We encourage our commenters to identify themselves and to use the Facebook Verified feature at the top of the home page to add legitimacy to their identification.

Obviously you may not post any comment that is obscene, slanderous or commercial in nature. You may not use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability or nationality.

Fellow posters are encouraged to flag comments they find inappropriate. If you have a concern, e-mail us at comments@forestparkreview.com. We will review those posts and remove any post which violates the civil spirit we are nurturing here.

Welcome and join in.

Terms of Service

ForestParkReview.com is a community website owned and operated by Wednesday Journal, Inc. We welcome your comments on our sites with the expectation that you will abide by the following terms:

    The individual posting a comment is responsible for the content and the accuracy of the comment. Comments posted do not necessarily reflect the position of Wednesday Journal, Inc.

    Profanity of any type, obscenity or pornography are not permitted.

    Language which abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability or nationality is not permitted.

    Threats, harassment or advocating the threatening or harassing of another person is not permitted.

    Solicitations or advertisements are not permitted.

    Links to personal websites are not permitted.

    Potentially libelous or slanderous comments are not permitted.

    Comments that are invasive of the privacy of another person or entity are not permitted.

    Knowingly posting information that a reader knows to be in incorrect is not permitted.

    Comments may not infringe on any patent, copyright, trademark, service mark, trade secret or other intellectual property.

    Comments which, in whole or in part, disrupt the normal functioning of ForestParkReview.com are not permitted.

    Quoting, in whole or in part, another comment which violated our Terms of Service is not permitted.

    Impersonating any person or entity, or falsely misrepresenting an affiliation with any other person or entity is not permitted.

    Posting under multiple pseudonyms with the intent to incite confusion is not permitted.

    Comments which for reasons not listed above fail to contribute to the greater community discussion will be removed. We reserve the right but assume no obligation to remove any comment which we feel violates our Terms of Service.


Readers of our site are empowered to report concerns over a particular posting. Send an e-mail to us at comments@forestparkreview.com. Comments will, at the discretion of our staff, either be left on the site or removed. We do not edit comments for content. We reserve the right to close comments on a particular article or thread at our discretion. In the interest of maintaining this site's use as a historical or archival record, Wednesday Journal, Inc. reserves the right to decline a request that content or comments be taken down from the site.

We reserve the right to reveal all information submitted to us, including IP addresses, in the event of legal action arising from any comment. Wednesday Journal will not disclose email addresses or IP addresses obtained through comment submission to advertisers, with the exception of legal action arising from a comment. We reserve the right to ban any reader from posting comments to our site using information submitted to us, including IP addresses.

In submitting a comment to ForestParkReview.com a reader automatically grants Wednesday Journal, Inc. royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide, non-exclusive rights to use, reproduce, modify, publish and display your comment in whole or in part in any venue.

Comments posted on this website can be found through search engines such as Google or Yahoo.

These same policies apply to any presence of a Wednesday Journal, Inc. property on any social media network including Facebook and Twitter.

Wednesday Journal, Inc. reserves the right to change the Terms of Service at any time.


I'm still looking for the "rule" that got me banned. There are more than a few that frequent commenters disregard with impunity.

"Flag `em all! Let Dan sort `em out?"



-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 23/April/2015 at 10:38pm
well, yeah. amazing how many rules (all of em) were smashed to crap during the election season. 
besides all that, so?

this moderating thing is dicey and i haven't agreed w/your's or dan's decisions this election. 
guess i'm getting jaded but unless one makes this their full time job AND makes great efforts to articulate 'rules' (the latter NOBODY seems willing to do), it seems moderators are winging it and, fundamentally, banning folks who irritate the crap out of them. it's a judgement call. 
for instance, i thought Cathleen was, by light years! the most corrosive voice on our internets. dark and horrid - no redeeming features. nada.
what is porn, what is art, what is fair play, what is civil, what is offensive?

btw, do you think David Webb has been banned? or just re-grouping :)
 


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:21am
Cathleen the most corrosive? Half of what she posted was in self-defense. She was stalked by B&J, eventually they scared her off. That was the intent, wasn't it?


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:24am
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:


I'm still looking for the "rule" that got me banned. There are more than a few that frequent commenters disregard with impunity.
It was that dumb name, ya should have chosen John Smith.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:26am
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

btw, do you think David Webb has been banned? or just re-grouping :)
Think maybe the Mayor called him off? We'll see.


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 7:50am
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Cathleen the most corrosive? Half of what she posted was in self-defense. She was stalked by B&J, eventually they scared her off. That was the intent, wasn't it?
my point proven :)
it's in the eye of the reader/moderator and certainly not limited to what 'side' the poster takes. 


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 7:59am
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:


I'm still looking for the "rule" that got me banned. There are more than a few that frequent commenters disregard with impunity.
It was that dumb name, ya should have chosen John Smith.
funny.
it didn't blend w/the FB charade of characters. Dudley Simon. 


Posted By: citizen
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 8:02am
i just edited my post (typo). what a joy!!! FB is just too weird.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 9:59am
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:


I'm still looking for the "rule" that got me banned. There are more than a few that frequent commenters disregard with impunity.
It was that dumb name, ya should have chosen John Smith.


FoPa Watcher? Dumb?

For the record, I created that FB account and used it exclusively on the Review. I did this AFTER somebody else began posting comments as "Watcher", deliberately, to confuse, disrupt and divert. That was long before the Review required FB verification.

Sadly, OOD (and his MPD brigade) along with Bill & Jerry cast the mold for the Review comments section from the beginning. Jumping on everything dragging it into the same old, same old. To the casual reader it surely didn't promote adding their own comments to get twisted or lost in the noise.



-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 10:45am
OK, I'll play(wink,wink).

Was trying to figure out how Bill D got away with all the "LOOK HERES", guess it was technically not a hyperlink. From the terms of agreement ^, appears the unofficial contract was continually broken.

Used to think it was so much BS when the Mayor claimed bias with Review reporting. Paid a little closer attention this time around. It's hard to defend

                            "HARRIS TARGETED"



and the mayor, too:)


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 12:05pm
No doubt about it, Bill and I were the bad boys that kept people from posting comments. So what is the reason now? Logic, it is hard to defend the mayor period but his thugs do it anyway.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:11pm
It's really very simple, jerry(?), it's one thing to defend, support one's candidate but a whole different ballgame when one it forced to constantly defend oneself. That's my personal POV and where I draw the line.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:35pm
and, jerry(?), did the thought ever occur to you, that YOUR antics, may have cost Mr Harris more than a few votes? Naw, probably not.


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 24/April/2015 at 1:50pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

No doubt about it, Bill and I were the bad boys that kept people from posting comments. So what is the reason now? Logic, it is hard to defend the mayor period but his thugs do it anyway.


Bill made no secret that he enjoyed ripping into "opponents". Your comments weren't that, just sometimes difficult to read. My point is that the comment section became your sandbox instead of anything resembling a forum. "They started it@!"??? From "outside" it looks repetitive and petty. Election wise, it was very odd that the sides had "Champions" and the candidates didn't have to respond to, clarify or speak to anything except through published rebuttals.

The comment section rarely expands the available information nor clarifies the contents of the column, article, story... the rare occasions that offer promise are quickly derailed. If you don't recognize the bait, you'll always end up on the hook...

Before the expected "pot meet kettle", I'd ask that you review a few of this place's longer, meatier threads. You'll notice that I'm not usually a main combatant or participant. (unless 209 related or specifically called out)




-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 25/April/2015 at 8:57am
logic, I think my feelings about the dog park and the people who use it may have cost him some vote's what I commented on not so much. The thing is there are people out there that refuse to see what is clearly placed before them and say oh no the mayor wouldn't do that when he clearly did.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 25/April/2015 at 9:00am
watcher, I agree that my posts can be difficult to read, this is something I am not really good at.  I have read some of the meater subjects and quite frankly what I read scared the crap out of me.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 25/April/2015 at 11:29am
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

logic, I think my feelings about the dog park and the people who use it may have cost him some vote's what I commented on not so much. The thing is there are people out there that refuse to see what is clearly placed before them and say oh no the mayor wouldn't do that when he clearly did.
jerry, your posts are not a particularly difficult read. IMAHO, it had nothing to do with the dog park, many posts lacked substance. Throughout this election, I viewed you and BD as a teammates but not in a positive way and certainly not always helpful to your candidate. Sure you have a different opinion, that's OK, but for me, I have no respect for ugly, sometimes dishonest, tactics.

Don't know what may have been going on on other related blogs, didn't even look, I stuck with the Review, FPF and info obtained from web searches.





Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 25/April/2015 at 1:09pm
logic, If I am dishonest then I do not  see how you can support the mayor and his tactics 


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 25/April/2015 at 2:04pm
I've had enough election talk, how about you?


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 26/April/2015 at 10:30am
Oh well then...

A topic about the FPR comment section's weird understanding of the internet, turns into a another discussion of people who comment there? I'm not sure how this helps further Dan's understanding that could lead to a more open, healthy platform for citizen involvement?

I guess I'm the only one who wonders if there's a better way.








-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 1:40pm
logic, I had enough election talk before the election. Watcher, the problem was when a discussion got started the thugs started in with the crap, one guy, 155 names. While FB reduced that people made up names and got on. I wish there a better way and matter there is, you send Dan your info, he assigns you something that allows you to comment, does that sound doable?


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 2:24pm
What if you don't abide by the rules, many did not? Who gets to be the judge? From the record, it sure appeared to be hit/miss. Therein lies the problem.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 3:45pm
I think people would be a lot behaved, it's one thing if people don't know who you are, it's another if they do. The judge in this case would be Dan. Right now it is very hit and miss, I know because I am on a very tight rein.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

I think people would be a lot behaved, it's one thing if people don't know who you are, it's another if they do.
One of the problems with that though, is many of the people on Calderone's team thought it best to go the fake profile route (except for Nick T). Therein lies a problem.


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 8:54pm
I agree, that's why it would have to go though the Review and aproved by the Review. Sort of an in house FB, and if you can't prove who you say you are you don't get to post. Nick T. isn't smart enough to do a fake account.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 9:05pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

I agree, that's why it would have to go though the Review and aproved by the Review. Sort of an in house FB, and if you can't prove who you say you are you don't get to post. Nick T. isn't smart enough to do a fake account.
no need to put people down.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 27/April/2015 at 9:27pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

I think people would be a lot behaved, it's one thing if people don't know who you are, it's another if they do. The judge in this case would be Dan. Right now it is very hit and miss, I know because I am on a very tight rein.
Yes, jerry, he knows who you are and let you, a few others, cross the line repeatedly. You're on a tight rein now that the election is over? Does it matter?


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 28/April/2015 at 3:07am
logic, yes it does, there are other things besides the election.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 28/April/2015 at 8:15am
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

I think people would be a lot behaved, it's one thing if people don't know who you are, it's another if they do.
People know who you are, did it change your behavior?


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 9:32am
Originally posted by citizen citizen wrote:

what still floors me, after all these years and esp after the recent election, the Calderone Crew has never produced one supporter that can/will write at length or regularly w/their real name, e.g. LTE's, columnists, regular posters. do they ALL work at VH???
and then they bitch/moan relentlessly that 'the other side' controls the media. please explain this to me


Back when MATC was a semi-regular poster/participant here, before the purge, there was a healthy back and forth. It wasn't the unfair, unbalanced hate fest that has been cemented in many minds. There was a manageable/ignorable lunatic fringe, but the topics were readable, on point and wide-ranging.

The "problems" arose from a number of hey-day issues that involved spending, development, authority and citizen-involvement. Defending MATC's "vision thing" became uncomfortable for him. With his bullet-proof majority, why bother? Much easier to dismiss the questions as sinister. After all, wasn't Mad Street mahvelous? Weren't we the new Wicker Park? Didn't we throw great parties? Don't we plow the sidewalks?

He decided to withdraw. Further, he demanded his "Team" follow suit.
MATC and his "Team Calderone" deleted over 300 of his posts and began their demonization of this place and its participants. He/They carried out similar "shunnings" of CUinFP/Vox and the Review. Now he says he want to engage the community? Which community is that? Facebook? Where groups and post vanish? Amy Rita's Post?

Clearly, there is no acceptable platform for his engagement and the fault for that is not his?








-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 11:22am
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:

Clearly, there is no acceptable platform for his engagement and the fault for that is not his?
All platforms are an acceptable way to engage, what is there to fear?

On-topic note:)
Don't personally know Hosty Jr but his recent comments in the Review are ugly. The kinda thing usually said behind closed doors, maybe to a sig-other, not in the local paper. Reminds me of dumping dog shit in the street but hoping everyone will notice.


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 11:37am
I guess all the Hosty clan take the high road!


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 11:47am
logic, my behavior has always been the same, so no it would not effect me, but the person who used what, 150 names, yes. Amy Rita has never (I believe) posted in the Review under her own name but has under other names and when called on it changed names.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 11:58am
jerry, IMAHO, noticed a distinct difference or should I say deference, when you started goose-stepping with "he that shall remain nameless".


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

All platforms are an acceptable way to engage, what is there to fear?

On-topic note:)
Don't personally know Hosty Jr but his recent comments in the Review are ugly. The kinda thing usually said behind closed doors, maybe to a sig-other, not in the local paper. Reminds me of dumping dog shit in the street but hoping everyone will notice.


Acceptable to you, but SFAIK, you're not calling the shots. This is a matter of the mayor, other elected officials, and Dan Haley's media empire determining the playing field. Comments,suggestions, discussions taking place outside of their playground are somehow meaningless? These are the Leaders?

On-topic of what? "Not my circus; not my flying monkeys." I don't understand the logic. That's your department. and poor Gus! maybe "ethically challenged" would be a more fitting descriptor?





-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: piehead
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:


and poor Gus! maybe "ethically challenged" would be a more fitting descriptor?



Yes, he must protect his way of life and defend


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by watcher watcher wrote:

Acceptable to you, but SFAIK, you're not calling the shots. This is a matter of the mayor, other elected officials, and Dan Haley's media empire determining the playing field. Comments,suggestions, discussions taking place outside of their playground are somehow meaningless? These are the Leaders?
Of course, I'm not calling the shots. The Mayor, others, wannabes had time, seek attention when they're asking for your vote but are only able to engage by selective dribs n drabs, addresses in the Post, once elected?


Posted By: watcher
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by logic logic wrote:

Of course, I'm not calling the shots. The Mayor, others, wannabes had time, seek attention when they're asking for your vote but are only able to engage by selective dribs n drabs, addresses in the Post, once elected?


Then stop saying "engagement". If you can't stop worrying about WHO said it and focus on WHAT was said, then you're not interested. Stop pretending. Especially when you suck at it. The same goes for Dan and his comment circus. If you're not going to fix the signal to noise ratio, it's all just noise.

MATC hasn't written in the post for over a year (without explanation). It's all been said? If you weren't here or missed it, that's not his fault or problem either. Look it up on the intertubes!

Oh wait, anything you search for will likely end up linking to here or to the Review. Again, not his fault or problem. At some point, people will know better than to even ask.




It all just goes on his "rhymes with bucket" list anyway; unless it has sugary goodness.

-------------
"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 4:28pm
Gee, now I am a Nazi. Well you haven't heard some of BD's and my phone or e mail chats where we beat each other like old rugs. My comment chanced because other things had chanced and I got tired of trying to be nice when others were being assholes.


Posted By: logic
Date Posted: 29/April/2015 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by jerry jerry wrote:

Gee, now I am a Nazi. Well you haven't heard some of BD's and my phone or e mail chats where we beat each other like old rugs.
For clarity, not a Nazi but a falling in line reference. Keep up the beatings, maybe it'll knock some...........


Posted By: jerry
Date Posted: 01/May/2015 at 2:46pm
logic, not likey



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk