Print

YES

24 (34.8%)

NO

27 (39.1%)

NOT UNLESS NECESSARY, too complicated?

18 (26.1%)

Total Members Voted: 62

[Flanders]

Dan Shaw – Question,
Just wondering if you could provide me with some clarification on appropriate discussion.  

For example, I’m assuming that it would be acceptable to criticize Jim Leyland, coach of the Tigers (or maybe not).  However, would it then be acceptable to criticize, say, a local high school coach for his/her coaching abilities?  Neither are public officials and in fact, I would argue that a professional sports team is more of a private company than a public educational institution’s employee (coach).  Just wondering for future reference, thanks in advance.

[zard0z]

I know it's probably too much trouble to read the entire thread before sticking your foot in your mouth. Just like the posts prior to this I was forced to go do the homework because some, like you, come on like an unarmed man at at the O K Corral. I am getting tired of literally babysitting and tutoring. But here goes. I was making a point that just because someone uses.... (dots), That does NOT make them someone else.
I am really sorry you missed it. Does that change your attitude knowing that you missed the point and immediately went on the attack?
Funny stuff the troll b gone bit. I am really thinking that I am dealing with mentally challenged individuals that probably find it hard to tie their shoes. Your s and the rest of the mobs attacks, I will have to admit are working. You people make it like a full time job to answer your ridiculousness. I may  cease coming on here because;
#1 Opinions are not allowed.
#2 Topics are pretty well useless, because attacks take precedence.
#3 I probably am, for the most part, just arguing with the same person under different aliases.
#4 The majority only want to have conversations amongst themselves. No newcomers allowed.
#5 There is no winning and what do you win? The possibility of anonymous people accepting you?
#6 People lie and then defend it to the end even when shown to be wrong.
Is that enough? I could go on for days about the way most of you act like little children on the playground.
I got the wrong idea about coming on here for goodhearted entertainment.
So jump for joy, I have about had all the the ridiculous, vindictive, arrogance and maliciousness on here.

You sir are doing nothing but stirring up trouble and instigating the attacks and accusations, be gone with you already...

[Jim Richards]

Uh, excuse me, but the word French was added by Mr. Jim Richards, not utility slug.   I don't modify other folks' quotes. Go back and read reply #28.

You actually assume people are STUPID? I added it in parenthesis for clarification. So if anyone does go back and read it, they will see that.
So typical of the mob on here to make it appear they found some GREAT point that just proves their point.
Are you trying to imply that you were not talking about French? OR, that by placing the name French there distorted your post?
You probably will not answer.
That is the norm from the regulars on here. Just attack and retreat.

More importantly! What does all your innuendo and accusations have to do with the topic?

[Jim Richards]

I'm at a disadvantage here because I missed the thread that has caused all the uproar. I have to say though that when I registered here several months ago I was appalled at some of the name calling posts that I saw and that were allowed to stay without being deleted.

As a long time veteran of message boards, I was bemused to find that this one was 'self-moderated' and that many posters took advantage of that and ignored just plain basic common courtesy and etiquette. I frequently post to another message board where the moderation is so heavy handed that it's ridiculous. I've seen posts get deleted that in no way violated the forum's TOS and they've lost many posters because of it.

On the other hand it appears (from what little I can gather now) that some kind of slug fest was going on here recently. As Mr. Shaw points out in his blog entry, intervention probably did a lot of people a favor.

I think  many people don't understand that your right to free speech ends when it infringes on someone else's integrity and reputation. I only wish I knew what the hell happened so I could give a better opinion on how it was resolved. 

You are sooooooo CORRECTO MONDO!!!
What you missed is a city councilman, who I will leave nameless for fear of banishment, was slinging false accusations, name-calling and the whole gamut of rudeness. Posters came on, including myself, and would set the record straight. To no avail naturally. A new poster came on and asked him some pointed questions about his actions, integrity and things being swept under the rug when it comes to him not having to face the same music as the average, unconnected citizen.
I better stop there, but one last thing. Many felt that since he opened the can of worms, it was fair play to do the same thing he was doing to others.Sincerely,
Jim Richards

[Kitt]

How bout just censoring one person? Who would everyone choose?

Wow! Talk about a blatant attempt to start one huge rabble rousing party! Last I checked this was a discussion board and not an episode of 'Survivor'.

You're just encouraging people to start attacking individual members and I find that in poor taste and inexcusable behavior.

[MM1]

You actually assume people are STUPID? I added it in parenthesis for clarification. So if anyone does go back and read it, they will see that.

HEY!  Wait just a minute Slug!  Is this TRUE?  Alas the truth comes out.  You ARE bad. VERY VERY bad.  You've been hiding behind this nice facade all along!  Your constant kindness was only a fake act.  Your dependable decency and predictably honorable disposition have just been a ploy to make us all THINK you are good.  But, you are in fact bad.  Very very bad.

(Oh puhleeeeeze.  Give me a frickin' break)

[riversbend again]

I know it's probably too much trouble to read the entire thread before sticking your foot in your mouth. Just like the posts prior to this I was forced to go do the homework because some, like you, come on like an unarmed man at at the O K Corral. I am getting tired of literally babysitting and tutoring. But here goes. I was making a point that just because someone uses.... (dots), That does NOT make them someone else.
I am really sorry you missed it. Does that change your attitude knowing that you missed the point and immediately went on the attack?
Funny stuff the troll b gone bit. I am really thinking that I am dealing with mentally challenged individuals that probably find it hard to tie their shoes. Your s and the rest of the mobs attacks, I will have to admit are working. You people make it like a full time job to answer your ridiculousness. I may  cease coming on here because;
#1 Opinions are not allowed.
#2 Topics are pretty well useless, because attacks take precedence.
#3 I probably am, for the most part, just arguing with the same person under different aliases.
#4 The majority only want to have conversations amongst themselves. No newcomers allowed.
#5 There is no winning and what do you win? The possibility of anonymous people accepting you?
#6 People Lie and then defend it to the end even when shown to be wrong.
#7 It does not seem that anything will change the attacks or the people making the attacks.
#8 A BIG WASTE OF TIME that could be done doing something productive.
Is that enough? I could go on for days about the way most of you act like little children on the playground.
I got the wrong idea about coming on here for goodhearted entertainment.
So jump for joy, I have about had all the the ridiculous, vindictive, arrogance and maliciousness on here.

Now how funny is that? When you first started coming here your spelling was so atrocious that the rest of us had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say. You stated you found "spell check" and now suddenly you are a superior being?!  *

[Jim Richards]

How bout just censoring one person? Who would everyone choose?

Start a poll. Who do you say?
Are you that weak and have nothing of substance to counter the truth?

[supermom]

I know it's probably too much trouble to read the entire thread before sticking your foot in your mouth. Just like the posts prior to this I was forced to go do the homework because some, like you, come on like an unarmed man at at the O K Corral. I am getting tired of literally babysitting and tutoring. But here goes. I was making a point that just because someone uses.... (dots), That does NOT make them someone else.
I am really sorry you missed it. Does that change your attitude knowing that you missed the point and immediately went on the attack?
Funny stuff the troll b gone bit. I am really thinking that I am dealing with mentally challenged individuals that probably find it hard to tie their shoes. Your s and the rest of the mobs attacks, I will have to admit are working. You people make it like a full time job to answer your ridiculousness. I may  cease coming on here because;
#1 Opinions are not allowed.
#2 Topics are pretty well useless, because attacks take precedence.
#3 I probably am, for the most part, just arguing with the same person under different aliases.
#4 The majority only want to have conversations amongst themselves. No newcomers allowed.
#5 There is no winning and what do you win? The possibility of anonymous people accepting you?
#6 People Lie and then defend it to the end even when shown to be wrong.
#7 It does not seem that anything will change the attacks or the people making the attacks.
#8 A BIG WASTE OF TIME that could be done doing something productive.
Is that enough? I could go on for days about the way most of you act like little children on the playground.
I got the wrong idea about coming on here for goodhearted entertainment.
So jump for joy, I have about had all the the ridiculous, vindictive, arrogance and maliciousness on here.

You are kidding, right? "...literally babysitting and tutoring." Weren't you the one who joined MT and used such broken language and words that it made people think you were a second grader? Then you "found" spell check and all of a sudden your words and grammar were readable!

If you do not like the people on here, why don't you leave? It is still a free country. Just because everyone does not agree with you does not mean we are the "mob." I have been on several threads where I was the underdog. I carefully read others opinions and made my own opinions. I never felt that I was being attacked. Oh yea! When I joined the threads I did not come off as a hot head and I did not attack and insult others. I guess that is the difference between me and you.

You have commented more than once about staying on topic... I guess it is hard to do... even for you.

[Kitt]

You are sooooooo CORRECTO MONDO!!!
What you missed is a city councilman, who I will leave nameless for fear of banishment, was slinging false accusations, name-calling and the whole gamut of rudeness. Posters came on, including myself, and would set the record straight. To no avail naturally. A new poster came on and asked him some pointed questions about his actions, integrity and things being swept under the rug when it comes to him not having to face the same music as the average, unconnected citizen.
I better stop there, but one last thing. Many felt that since he opened the can of worms, it was fair play to do the same thing he was doing to others.Sincerely,
Jim Richards

Thanks for the edification! If the person doing the mud slinging is an elected official then it would seem to me that he would be in danger of being sued for libel himself if the accusations he made were untrue.

He should receive no special immunity from prosecution and should have to adhere to whatever standards of behavior this forum has in their TOS just as any other poster should. I think I now know who you're talking about, btw.

So many people who have lived in small towns like this all their lives have become accustomed to elected officials getting by with this kind of thing though that many don't even think it's unusual or wrong.

[supermom]

You are sooooooo CORRECTO MONDO!!!
What you missed is a city councilman, who I will leave nameless for fear of banishment, was slinging false accusations, name-calling and the whole gamut of rudeness. Posters came on, including myself, and would set the record straight. To no avail naturally. A new poster came on and asked him some pointed questions about his actions, integrity and things being swept under the rug when it comes to him not having to face the same music as the average, unconnected citizen.
I better stop there, but one last thing. Many felt that since he opened the can of worms, it was fair play to do the same thing he was doing to others.Sincerely,
Jim Richards

Way to turn things around. I believe it was YOUR attacking that prompted the administrator to delete the posts. Your "rumors" that you could not prove and your rambling attacks.

As a bystander to the topic and contributor to MT I have read your many attacks as have others. I believe that everyone on here will arrive at their own opinions about what you said and the answers that were received. You did receive answers to your allegations. However, since the answers did not suit what you wanted to hear, you ignored them.

[supermom]

Thanks for the edification! If the person doing the mud slinging is an elected official then it would seem to me that he would be in danger of being sued for libel himself if the accusations he made were untrue.

He should receive no special immunity from prosecution and should have to adhere to whatever standards of behavior this forum has in their TOS just as any other poster should. I think I now know who you're talking about, btw.

So many people who have lived in small towns like this all their lives have become accustomed to elected officials getting by with this kind of thing though that many don't even think it's unusual or wrong.

Kitt - it is unfortunate that you missed all the mud slinging.  However, you are now receiving false information. The mud slinging was done by Jim Richards, MOT, French, etc. HE was slinging mud at a city councilman. The councilman was only defending himself. (NO I AM NOT BB)

[ytrewq]

AFRAID? Afraid to be outed?
Let's add another one the mob. But in your case, maybe it's Brian Beneteau? It would really be interesting to see all those aliases go bye bye bye.

Thanks for making my point.  Anyone who doesn't like your ranting is either Brian B or "the mob".  Blocking IPs won't stop that.  You'll just continue to make the same claims.

[Kitt]

Way to turn things around. I believe it was YOUR attacking that prompted the administrator to delete the posts. Your "rumors" that you could not prove and your rambling attacks.

Oh, damn. I'm already getting a headache! So, I'm never going to get the true story of what exactly happened?  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. When you come in on a thread that is about another thread that was deleted it's too much to think that you can ever sort it out! 

[danshaw]

Dan Shaw – Question,
Just wondering if you could provide me with some clarification on appropriate discussion.  

For example, I’m assuming that it would be acceptable to criticize Jim Leyland, coach of the Tigers (or maybe not).  However, would it then be acceptable to criticize, say, a local high school coach for his/her coaching abilities?  Neither are public officials and in fact, I would argue that a professional sports team is more of a private company than a public educational institution’s employee (coach).  Just wondering for future reference, thanks in advance.

You're raising a great question. Entire college courses cover this subject. Here's a short version. I'm not a lawyer, so this is the lay version:

The Supreme Court has essentially created three classes of people: Public officials, public figures, and everyone else. The "public figure" class is divided further into two categories: people who are public figures by virtue of their job or public role, and people who become public figures because they're thrust into the public limelight by a specific incident or event. An example would be a local business owner who is arrested for sex-related charges. He was just a private citizen before the arrrest, but he becomes a limited public figure while his case is in the limelight.

There have been many court cases determining who is a public official, who is a public figure and who is a private citizen. The issue hasn't been entirely resolved - there still are gray areas. But here are some examples that are fairly well accepted.

Public officials are people who are elected to their positions, or hold appointed positions that are so prominent that they're essentially the same thing. The president, the governor, the mayor, the sheriff, the chief of police, etc.

Public figures are people who are clearly in the public limelight, even though they weren't elected. Baseball players and manager, movie stars, CEOs of major corporations, etc. So your example of Jim Leyland falls into this category. He is clearly a public figure.

The reason this is important is that the Supreme Court has set a very different standard for what is appropriate criticism of public officials and figures, as opposed to the rest of us. You can say anything you want about Jim Leyland and in order to win a libel lawsuit, he would essentially have to not only prove it isn't true, but also prove that you said it with malicious intent. In other words, that you knew it wasn't true and said it just to damage him. All a private citizen has to prove is that it isn't true and that it damaged him/her in some way.  

Your example of a high school coach is another good one. I don't think a First Amendment lawyer, even a real expert, would be willing to give a flat opinion that a high school coach is a public figure or not. It just depends. The coach of a high profile football team, who is often in the news, being interviewed on television, etc., probably is a public figure. The volleyball coach may not be. It's a gray area. So when Monroe High School's volleyball coach was criticized on MonroeTalks.com, I was a lot more worried than I would have been if it had been the University of Michigan's football coach. He's clearly a public figure.

The limited public figure status is even cloudier. A police officer working the street beat probably isn't a public figure. But when he becomes the lead detective handling a sensational murder trial, quoted daily in the newspaper and on televison, he probably becomes a public figure - but only as it relates to that case. He's not fair game for criticism of his private life - unless of course it's true.

Truth is pretty much an absolute defense against libel.

This also may apply to the volleyball coach. She may be a limited public figure - only as the criticism relates to her performance of her coaching job. She would probably be a private citizen when it came to anything not related to her coaching.

That's probably more than you wanted to know. But don't hesitate if you want further clarification. It's actually kind of relevant for this discussion forum. People who publicly attack another private citizen should realize that a libel lawsuit is a possibility.