Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 9     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #126 
Skeptic: Apologies...I attempted to post a link that for whatever reason didn't work. I will try later.
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #127 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Arneson
Skeptic: Apologies...I attempted to post a link that for whatever reason didn't work. I will try later.


Skeptic: Let's try this. For your review.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/19/its-time-to-end-anonymous-comments-sections/&ved=0ahUKEwj-l4ne4PLRAhVI3mMKHSTvBy4QFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNF5tgYtteUF1IjRh0mSDLZ6TzDG-A&sig2=x7qSRLkxBL1u3T8IgGUclA
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #128 
The Gazette cannot even print the true facts. Cam MacKay did not present a motion and the backgrounder was185 words. Not a waste of time. Seems their intent is to taint a person's reputation. Shame on them.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #129 
I have had enough of the jabs at the Gazette by the same old 'shame on you' people.

Got a beef with the Gazette? Then email the Gazette. Or phone them, write them, visit their office. Just don't do so here anymore.

At least have the guts to talk directly to the Gazette, not use this forum to make unfounded and frankly silly accusations. Your comments are welcome if you state you do not agree with the Gazette's content or opinion, but accusing them of untruths or intent or whatever else is no longer welcome here.

Nor are personal attacks, even if borderline. Enough already. Issues yes, personalities no.

Any more and the response will become obvious to offenders very quickly. 
1
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #130 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Arneson
Skeptic: Not sure why you wish to rehash the anonymity discussion, this but apprarently it has touched a nerve it has an element of importance, insecutity or whatever for you. Dana makes some very valid points. My stance and yours differ and likely alway will... I've accepted that. Do as you wish.


Dennis:  Actually if you follow this thread it was not me that brought up the "anonymous" topic it was those who were attempting to create a distraction from the substance of the discussion thread.  However, I do appreciate your link and note the author admits that "Unfortunately, evidence about the consequences of anonymous comments sections is in shorter supply than speculation." 

It is indeed remarkable that in this Facebook/Twitter culture, there seems to be almost an aversion to rational discussion in which Cartesian logic is the common thread.  I suppose its a by-product of a culture  in which the truth by consensus theory dominates and which in turn generates an excessively subjectivist world view
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #131 
Skeptic: You're right, anonymity was not initially pointed out by you. I must however admit, I did find the fact you mentioned the author of the editorial was anonymous somewhat amusing, considering our past discussions. As I've said, we are clear on each others stance on the matter and it won't likely change on either side. So be it.
I remember as a youngster growing up on the farm eagerly awaiting the two weekly newspapers we received...The Western Producer and the Winnipeg Free Press. The Producer had Hansard excerpts, my favourite part of the paper.
Society and time have certainly changed our personal and media forms of communicating and discussion. We have and continue to change with it. We had debate clubs when I went to school....not sure if face to face debate, other than perhaps during elections, is a "thing" any longer.
With the advent and common use of the Internet, it's a totally different perspective it seems. My view, and I'll drop it after this, is that anonymity in any form of electronic media especially, encourages needless trolling and what would normally be reasonable discussion can become more agressive, spiteful and quite frankly unreasonable.
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #132 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Kevin:  Actually,  I have no "concern" with the Gazette editor being anonymous. I merely described the article as anonymous because there was no named author  to whom it could be attributed.    However, you or Dennis, who are constantly harping about anonymity, are free to take your crusade up with the Gazette if you so choose.   (Their defence may be a little tougher to make than that of the general public since the Sun and other newspapers habitually publish the name of the journalist who wrote the editorial.)  I think it would be an interesting "letter to the editor" which, as you say, I cannot write because I have no objection to non-defamatory letters being published anonymously but you or Dennis certainly have the credentials for that crusade.


Skeptic, you are correct. I was the one that brought the anonymity discussion up. It was you however that decided to specifically bring Dennis into it.

I have no issue with the Gazette and have no issue with the editorial piece. 

I also have no interest in your criticism of the city lawyer Mr. Klenke. Advice from a working/employed lawyer holds a lot more weight with me than commentary from someone who continually tells us that he has never been a lawyer.



__________________
 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #133 
Dennis:  I understand your point.  For my part I have to look at the content of the post to determine whether or not its a case of trolling..... I am unable to decide merely by looking to see if they employ a pseudonym or not.   
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #134 
Skeptic: If you're insinuating I said all Internet/Social media anonymity was trolling you're wrong. I said it encourages trolling. Trolling is not exclusive to anonymous participants.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #135 

Kevin: I am not surprised that you have no interest in my criticism of Klenke's backgrounder. Klenke, of course, has his position which is not totally without merit and the defence or critique thereof does involve some analysis. Many people in this Facebook/Twitter culture employ the fallacy of arguing from authority as it avoids  time consuming analysis. However, that is understandable in a fast moving world of complexity and specialization.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Arneson
Skeptic: If you're insinuating I said all Internet/Social media anonymity was trolling you're wrong. I said it encourages trolling. Trolling is not exclusive to anonymous participants.

O.K. Then the question is rather straightforward .... do you consider my posts to be trolling. If you do .. that's acceptable as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you do not ... then your habitual reference to my anonymity would seem to be a disconnect

0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic

O.K. Then the question is rather straightforward .... do you consider my posts to be trolling. If you do .. that's acceptable as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you do not ... then your habitual reference to my anonymity would seem to be a disconnect



For starters I do not habitually refer to your anonymity. That is your somewhat misleading choice of words.
Secondly, for whatever reason (perhaps trolling) you dropped my name into your post and have done so on at least one other occasion recently.
I would suggest perhaps the purpose of many of your posts is obvious. If it is your choice to support the "favoured son" politically in supposed anonymity...so be it.


0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #138 
Dennis:    It seems you have just make my point.  Do you have any substantive objections to my critique of Klenke's opinion and the Gazettes editorial..... or is it a case that you think you have made a point by attacking the messenger? 

The former would involve some application of Cartesian logic ... the latter would seem to be more appropriate as a gossippy contribution to the gang at the local establishment. 
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #139 
It is groundhog day Dennis, guess what we get for another 8 months until the next council is elected?
__________________
 
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Dennis:    It seems you have just make my point.  Do you have any substantive objections to my critique of Klenke's opinion and the Gazettes editorial..... or is it a case that you think you have made a point by attacking the messenger? 

The former would involve some application of Cartesian logic ... the latter would seem to be more appropriate as a gossippy contribution to the gang at the local establishment. 


Skeptic: It was you Sir who dragged me into this with your comments on anonymity and mentioning Kevin and I. The purpose I don't understand.
I'll await Cam's letter to the editor in the Gazette before I decide to humour you with further comment here.



0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #141 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
It is groundhog day Dennis, guess what we get for another 8 months until the next council is elected?


My guess would be someone or something saw it's shadow and more of the same...including this gossipy contribution to the gang at the local drinking establishment....which considering the fact I don't drink and have been to the grand total of two Poliwings (and which I assume is the intended "dig") is a ridiculous comment indeed.
Skeptic: Enjoy your evening. Before I say something I may regret and out of respect for Don I will take leave from this forum.
As always, last word I'm sure will be yours.
1
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #142 
Dennis's comment to Skeptic: "It was you Sir who dragged me into this with your comments on anonymity and mentioning Kevin and I. The purpose I don't understand."
Reminds me of a young child giving justification for his bad behaviour: "He made me do it". Or Adam's blaming God for him eating the apple: "The woman you gave me made me eat it". And Eve's defence of her first eating the apple: "The devil made me do it".

EDITED to remove unnecessary taunt. - HH
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #143 
This seemingly endless bantering back and forth leads me to implore all involved parties to make a concerted effort toward seeking unanimity on anonymity!
0
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #144 
Ok I just had a comment deleted (in the FB group) when I asked if the editorial was 'ghost-written' by someone in city hall. Although I understand the deletion, my (previous to that comment) question still stands; Who is the editorial writer of that piece? and why does he get to retain anonymity?
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #145 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick F
Ok I just had a comment deleted (in the FB group) when I asked if the editorial was 'ghost-written' by someone in city hall. Although I understand the deletion, my (previous to that comment) question still stands; Who is the editorial writer of that piece? and why does he get to retain anonymity?


Rick, at least have the courtesy to state exactly what your comment was that was deleted. But then again, you couldn't even quote correctly the comment that remains.

__________________
 
1
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #146 
The comment was "was the editorial ghost written by the mayor?"
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick F
The comment was "was the editorial ghost written by the mayor?"


And that was deleted on the grounds it was "uncalled for"  .... good grief ...is that the same crowd that calls this forum "an echo chamber"?  Maybe they have been studying free speech laws at Berkeley.[biggrin]
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #148 
We had an LRT study that cost over $500,000.00. We had discussion regarding a LRT that ate up days in council.

It was a waste.

You cannot deny it..... unless you are so pathetically aligned with some on council that you can not admit they've done anything wrong.

But Cam wasted time at a council meeting?
the Gazette writes an editorial that basically tells people to watch who the vote for this election after chastising Cam.

And people can't see the problem?

Ps. I've written them. Nothing gets published!
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #149 
@Rick.......

Thanks for having the courtesy to let us know exactly what your comment was. It really seems to have been weighing on Kevin's mind.

Unless it was an offensive tirade, it really shouldn't matter what your comment was.
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #150 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnoughAllready
@Rick....... Thanks for having the courtesy to let us know exactly what your comment was. It really seems to have been weighing on Kevin's mind. Unless it was an offensive tirade, it really shouldn't matter what your comment was.


I disagree. Rick chose to report to all of you that I deleted one of his posts. He made a statement that was not his original post and then stated  "Although I understand the deletion..." and continued on to misquote his previous post and state something that he did not post in the discussion.

There was absolutely no need to take a cheap shot at the Gazette and the Mayor in that discussion thread. That is why it was deleted.

I do not know if it was Rick's intent to try and generate more distaste and/or anger towards me, but it was the result; now looking at enough's post and others.

Comments in this forum complain about the hatred and anger on social media. OMG states she quit using Twitter because of this. What many seem to be forgetting is that this forum is social media and a large majority of posters here do nothing but attack other people and call them names. I could only assume that Rick's post would generate more of the same towards me.

Rick's question was answered on the Facebook forum, he just didn't like/accept the answer.

Rick's question here: "Who is the editorial writer of that piece? and why does he get to retain anonymity?"

Rick's question on Facebook: "Who is the writer? Anonymous?"

The "Wast of Time" piece is presented as an editorial, the Gazette has an editorial board and that piece is owned by the editorial board. The St. Albert Gazette is responsible for that piece and if you have a problem with it, you take your complaint to the Gazette.

On this forum many posters hide behind one or more aliases. I personally believe multiple people share accounts. (Just as husband/wife teams share accounts on Facebook.) If someone posting behind one of those aliases posts something slanderous or crosses an even bigger legal line is Don responsible?

I wonder if Don might have some legal responsibility, as he actively edits peoples posts making them his own and Don allows the aliases. I definitely am not a legal expert, it is just something I wonder about. I also wonder if Don thinks the same, which is why he has shut down the forum to the public multiple times and has turned off new registrations occasionally.

Yes, I think anonymous posting behind aliases is a dangerous thing to allow.

As always this is only my opinion and yours will probably differ. 

__________________
 
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.