Jeff,
I cannot see how quoting you verbatim can distort or misrepresent your views. I
included your comments as they demonstrate your commitment to freedom of
expression. Points scoring? Whoâs keeping the tally?
If I am correct, your main theme on this thread is that it is the language used
by some contributors that puts others off posting. You have stated that a good
number of the posts here are not arguments but vulgar personal abuse and the
forum âneeds to clean up its actâ.
Yes, the forum does have rules â I think thatâs a good thing. It also has a
moderator â I think that is another good thing as I am not an advocate of an
âanything goesâ forum as you suggest I am. If there had been any posts that
stepped beyond the bounds of the rules, I would expect the moderator to have
stepped in. As he hasnât, I donât see where the problem is. Which is why I
think it important that you highlight the posts that concern you, as the
moderator may have missed a trick.
I agree with you with regard to the forum being âself policedâ, but again, if
forum members havenât directed attention to a particular contribution, that of
itself implies there isnât a problem. Again, it would be useful if you directed
the rest of the forum to the vulgarity and abuse. If the only example you have
is the one that Peter directs us to, I think the moderator should explain why
he allowed it.
I donât think you can claim youâre opposed to âallâ forms of censorship, as
there has evidently been some views expressed on this forum that you would
rather have seen prohibited.
Obviously, I donât think your excuse for the lack of contributions to this
forum by elected members holds up. If there are a number of abusive posts on
this forum that are directed at them, surely they could just ignore those and
respond to the questions that relate to their role as councillors. Or they
could get council officers to respond on their behalf.
My blog is my blog and has no real bearing to this forum. I have explained why
I allowed the comment you refer to without censoring it. Interestingly, I
explained that, if I edited it I may have been accused of making it up. I see
that youâve jumped on that and are now claiming that Thomas Innes doesnât exist
and that I wrote the comment.
Thatâs as absurd as me claiming that: as I have no proof that you are who you
say you are; as you have a similar argumentative style to Cllr Gray; as you use
question marks in the same idiosyncratic way as Cllr Gray; and, as the only
other person who accuses me of making up comments by others when heâs run out
of argument is Cllr Gray, then you must be Cllr Gray. Ridiculous, isnât it? If
you were Gray, youâd be well aware that councillors can give as good as they
get when it comes to abuse.
If someone referred to a member of my family as scum Iâd ignore it. Iâm not
sure how you think I should react.
I do think councillors are, for the most part, cowardly because they do not
have the courage to explain why they support the mayorâs more contentious
decisions. If thatâs abuse, Iâm formally reporting myself to the moderator and
Iâll take my admonishment on the chin.
However, I donât think they are cowards because they donât do what I want them
to do. What I want them to do is to resign en mass. They will not do that
because they are smart⌠smart enough to know they are on to a good thing.