from Con
Thanks Con, We will heed your advice. What you say below regarding Taxpayer’s behavior is bothersome to the admins who enter the Cafe more than anyone else. It’s come down to the fact that when readers see Taxpayer’s obnoxious statements, they just pass over them with out reading them. Unfortunately, we have to read them for liability sake. Taxpayer submitted a long winded rant which he asked me not to post. This meant that we were relieved of the responsibility of having to read it. Since he said not to post it, it’s gone. You’ve said everything that is needed to be said below. Admin
To Admin, I object to your proposed action regarding Tax - you state: ” (In your typical back handed way you are mis-characterizing people. Keep it up and you will no longer have a voice at the Cafe. Admin)” [Parenthesis are sic]
It may well be that Tax mis-characterizes people, misquotes statements and otherwise manipulates the truth, but what you threaten smacks of prior restraint and I find THAT far, far more objectionable to anything Tax can offer. Of course, the answer to what Tax is accused of is to EXPOSE his actions at every turn - to challenge Tax relentlessly if he is doing any of those things. By doing so, it is the ‘free exchange of ideas’ which will expose him, punish and correct him because his credibility will drop, his ’standing’ will diminish like the shrinking man and soon his comments will not be taken seriously by ANYONE. Allow us to take care of it.
EXAMPLE: I was recently ‘banished’ from woodstocktruth.com for challenging their relentless BIAS in all of their articles (I used an Article attacking you, Becki, this site and a few others to mount this challenge - probably my 5th or so message to them pointing out how INCESTUOUS it is over there AND I stated that my message is sure to be met with Personal Attacks, Name-Calling and other immature responses, but NO challenge on the actual Merits of my comment. That occurred, of course. They jumped on me like Hyenas - and my comment was NOT that strong.
Admin over there took his usual ‘holier than everyone, so especially you’ approach - and AGAIN Violated his own Blog ‘Mission Statement’ regarding how he communicates - and his message smacked of smarmy self-righteousness, smug superiority and definitely this ‘Judgementalism’ I have been talking about. Judgmental only begins to describe Admin of woodstocktruth.com. He seems ready to sell out his purported ‘principles’ as stated within his Blog Statement; he seems willing to compromise that which ought never be compromised - his word. And all of that in order to try and spank one dissenting voice.
I’m convinced that I hit a nerve at truth.com - that Admin had no valid counter-point with which to challenge the merits of my statements (including the second one of 2,950 characters WHICH HE REFUSED TO POST! - hiding behind a truly lame and weak claim that it wastes his highness’ time and that because I talk about the biased and dishonest MANNER of their Sophist dissembling over there, instead of the (required, I guess) subject matter of a given article (”John and Becki have formed an organization which we must destroy!” and the like).
ALL TO SAY - please don’t do that here. We all know Tax; we can see right through him and I don’t think he does any harm (but if he did I would argue the same). Finally, I don’t see any honest basis for ‘banishing’ Tax - it’s a stretch to fit his comments into the forbidden behavior Rules. Please don’t behave anything remotely like the Admin at woodstocktruth.com.
Respectfully submitted.
I get tired of Tax’s mind games that seem to start up just for the reaction factor. I don’t think he’s wrapped very tight.
Sorry for such a long-winded rant about woodstocktruth.com - I should have just said “I may not agree with what [Tax] says, but I defend [his] right to say it” instead of including so much irrelevant opinion.
My personal opinion about wtruth.com Admin’s tone or whether I think he is condescending is only opinion and is irrelevant to the subject of ‘prior restraint & banishment’ of a contributor. I guess my frustration about my negative experience and treatment at that site helped me kind of lose my temper while describing some of it. That stuff is for another post and to be fair to woodstocktruth.com, it has not been 100% negative - we have had some constructive dialogue and I have received fair treatment (to a point) even in response to highly critical comments.
wtruth.com has now told me to ‘go away’ (they usually tell me to ‘go back to Cafe’ for reasons I can’t guess). I’ve said before that I recommend the visiting/reading of and contributing comments to both sites. Although I think that there is a visceral mean-spirited atmosphere ‘over there’ (they actually call the Cafe’ site ‘Aljazeera’, which I think is highly offensive and very telling of their prejudice, etc.), but because there are so many biased articles swallowed wholesale and unchallenged by readers they could really use some even-handed input to debunk the propaganda and there are plenty of statements which ought not stand unchallenged (like during last year’s special BOE Vote).
Ironically, most of them assert that the Cafe’s site is guilty of propaganda and censorship (Cafe’ has NEVER refused to post a comment I’ve submitted; wtruth has refused to post many, many comments I’ve submitted, including 4 this week). Anyway, It’s worth visiting wtruth and reading what they post because it’s important to see and read what other Woodstock Citizens are writing, what they believe, etc. This is especially true if there is some sort of contest when it’s valuable to ‘know your opponent’.
By other Woodstock citizens, you mean the 2 citizens?
John,
I’m sorry that you did not read my correspondence to you. It was heartfelt and I was earnestly trying to express my concerns so that you could better understand my position.
Con,
Thanks for recognizing the value in appreciating diverse opinions. I understand that the issues I raise are very sensitive to people, but that’s what makes them worth arguing about.
However, in the process of heated debate, emotions will run high, feelings can get hurt, ego’s shattered, and,particularly with the written word, misunderstandings can occur. I think we all need to take the time to appreciate this and to give each other a little slack and benefit of doubt-rather than make cheap shots like Chicklet loves to do.
You introduced it as a “rant”. No Thanks.
John-
Your tone is rather similiar to the “I’m done” with which Mr. Powers dismissed Con over on his site. I’m afraid you have more in common, as regards your attitude to those who disagree on your we sites, than you might like to think.
Thanks for the warning, doubtful. Yours is heeded as was Con’s.
Just for the record, we have 4 years and 5 months of being disagreed with here at the Cafe; so that accusation will not float. What I am against is the repeated, willful, and wreckless mis-representation of what others at the Cafe have said. This is a game for one that forces others to come back just to try to correct the record. This is not a form of ‘disagreement’- it’s a manipulative game that will not be allowed to continue. One possible solution would be to demand that the game player use his/her real name. Would that be okay with you?
I made neither a warning nor an accusation but an observation.
Although I am participating in it here I am not a fan of anonymous posting and everyone using their real name would be very OK with me.
The “warning” and “accusation” was that if I am not careful I might turn into Powers in terms of management of this website…. and you were right, doubtful and Con, to make that comparison. It was like throwing cold water onto my face, and I thank you both. I can’t imagine being in Powers’ skin for a variety of reasons. Incidently, I have a signed letter from Craig and Sue saying that they will sue me (pardon the pun) if I mention their vendetta against the school system (Ups! I did it again). Two (Craig and Sue are one) have threatened lawsuits in writing. This has been the only criteria so far for being banned from the Cafe.
I have a thick skin (my own skin) for being disagreed with. This was the nature of being a competitive research scientist. You have to listen to criticism and learn from it. Some, though, can’t stand being criticized. That’s not me.