Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: A discussion board "buyer's guide"

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    I do not know that I found the correct post, the one the Selectmen are concerned about. My quick reading of it made me think if that's it then their selectmen's response is an over-reaction.

    It's the principle of anonymity and slander, however, that I think makes an interesting topic.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    It's the principle of anonymity and slander, however, that I think makes an interesting topic.
    Well we both agree that anonymity and slander is an interesting topic. And that is because it gets into rights of privacy and freedom of speech. Then there is the topic of slander which, in itself, is one of the most difficult things to successfuly prove and get restitution. People litigate for years over slander and slander is remedied by what is the truth.

    In my (somewhat comical example) of what 'so and so' was called (I won't repeat it since you can reference the post above)... suppose 'so and so' really was all those things and it could be proven.

    If someone said that Tiger Woods is a 'womanizer' then could he successfully sue that person as a slanderer? (Given what is said in the media is actually true)
    Today while checking out at the supermarket I looked over to see the National Enqjirrer with a headline that Obama was actually a terrorist based on the roots of where he was born and how he was raised. So does the National Enquirrer get sued by Obama? (They probably deserve it)

    You used the word over-reaction... this is really an important observation.
    In the early 1990's Tom Selleck was accused of being gay (and I hereby state the famous Seinfield line "there is nothing wrong with that") and he sued successfully. Tom isn't gay (and if he was 'there is nothing wrong with that') but to this day people still question whether Tom Selleck is gay (ya ya 'nothing wrong...').

    The point is that by having such a strong reaction to that statement when he was married and had a daughter and there was absolutely no proof or reason for someone to believe this... he could have laughed and shrugged it off. Today its somewhat of a pop-culture trivia thing.

    If the selectmen of a certain town over-react and try to strong arm the equivalent of a 'Kim' owner of another discussion forum to pierce the privacy of an anonymous poster then they are giving too much weight to some anonymous post.

    They could have simply published a letter to the editor, well written, thoughtful, respectful and factual.... dismissing the misinformed 'Marty' and sent him on his way.
    If Marty had some real proof he is only one letter away from the OCPF or the DA etc... evidently Marty wants to blog.

    By that town actually hiring a lawyer, spending tax payer dollars, threatening the 'Kim' of Southboro and trying to unmask Marty they have just done a Tom Selleck (and there is something wrong with that).

    I now know about some alleged executive session that may have not been proper.
    I now know about some OML violation that is also alleged.

    And you know what? Their Tom Selleck reaction makes me suspicious of them. I believe Marty's innuendos. So they should thank themselves for trumpeting their alleged transgressions to the rest of us.

    OK on another note... I would like some advice Kim...
    I got this email today...

    FROM THE DESK OF MR.KWEKU ADAMS
    BRANCH MANAGER=
    INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
    (ICB)-GHANA.
    EASTERN DISTRICT BRANCH
    OUR REF: ICB/435/xo/026

    Hello Dear,

    I got your contact during my search for a reliable, trust worthy and honest person to introduce this transfer project with.

    My Name is Mr. Kweku Adams. I am the Eastern regional branch manager of the International Commercial Bank Limited - Ghana in West Africa.

    I am a Christian. I do not want problems but I just hope you can assist me.

    I write you this letter in good faith. I am in control of the sum of Nine Million, Three Hundred United States Dollars (US$9.300.000.00), which was an excess of profit made by our regional eastern branch office in the last quarter of the year 2009,which I have carefully placed in an Escrow Call Deposit Account and did not declare this to my head office.

    Can I really trust you to hold this money for me until I arrive your country and pick it up myself and you deduct 30% of the total money as your commission?

    If you accept my offer you can contact me immediately. If you do not accept you can forget I contacted you? All I need is for you to get me a good current account in your bank where I can move this money.

    I will discretely give you all the information concerning the account so that you can apply to the bank for the release of the money.

    There is practically no risk involved, it will be a bank to bank transfer. Take my word.
    I hope you understand my situation.
    Thank you for your anticipated timely response.

    Yours truly,
    Kweku Adams.

    N/B:if you are willing and interested to work with me, forward in your response the following information's:
    FULL NAMES:...................AGE...............
    RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.............OCCUPATION:...........
    PHONE:.................COUNTRY:..............
    COMPANY :..............(IF ANY)EMAIL..........
    REPLY TO: kwekuadamsplc@live.com


    Think I should jump right on this?
    Any takers out there in WaylandENews land?
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 04-03-2010 at 10:16 PM. Reason: Typos er I mean spelling

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    I think I'd leave Mr. Adams to his own devices. :-)

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    If there's nothing wrong with being gay (and there isn't, of course), on what grounds could you sue someone who called you that?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    If there's nothing wrong with being gay (and there isn't, of course), on what grounds could you sue someone who called you that?
    If your talking about the Tom Selleck incident which was cica 1991 ish then we would be talking about a guy with a macho reputation ie. Magnum PI as one example. He built his career on his heterosexuality or straightness. So in his case, saying that he was not straight was a direct assault on his career and income. Hows that for grounds?

    If you said that about me... that I'm gay... I would say that I am... I'm very happy.
    Of course being married for 26 years with 2 kids is probably not a proof either. But if I were dogged about this on a blog and I felt inclined I would simply rip that blogger with some pseudo-polite retorts and make it go away. Else, I might ask the moderator to zap the blog entries and when that hapens enough, the moderator could zap the account. There are so many ways to handle this stuff besides hiring lawyers and trying to invade privacy.

    What do you think?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    I'm no advocate of frivolous lawsuits. (See: MA District Attorney [grin].)

    The time dimension is an interesting angle to slander/libel. Today, macho isn't equal to straight. In fact, on average, I wouldn't be surprised if gay men are more fit than straight men. That said, macho isn't exactly equal to fit either. I wonder if Selleck's successful lawsuit in 1991 would be successful today. Also, I suspect that venue matters.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    As Sam Kinison said: "Hey Tom you could have just shrugged it off and laughed about it... hey maybe he is gay?" (And there is nothing wrong with that)
    Kim, am I off thread now?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Um, yeah, a little off topic.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    I had thought that we had a "message board anonymity" thread, but if so, I couldn't find it. In any event, interesting article on salon.com making the case that what message boards need is moderation, not identification.

    Those of us lobbying for identification as well as those of us making the case for anonymity probably agree on one thing: we'd like at least relatively civil discussion. I'll argue that for the most part, that has been a characteristic of this Discussion Forum. One thing that we haven't gained through identification (or anything else) is broad-based participation.

    As a result, I'd be happy to consider exploring an anonymous option with moderation. That is, one or several moderators (I'm not lobbying to be one, but would do so if we didn't have other takers and if a super-majority of existing users from different "camps" agreed) would be empowered to give yellow cards ("Please tone it down."), red cards ("Sorry, had to delete your post."), and league expulsions ("Don't let the door hit you on the way out.") as appropriate. With a clear set of rules (we have them, I'd say), maybe this would work. Anyone signing up (either identified or anonymous) would be made to understand that chronic abuse might be sufficient to revert the DF back to identified posters only.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    As I've stated before. The real value of this DF is the fact that its named and its moderated.
    This allows a balance of power between the posters.

    When it becomes anonymous, I drop out....

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Alan, what if we tried moderated anonymity for a finite period--say, 2-4 weeks?

    Or, what if we allowed people to apply to Kim for an anonymous handle? I know that we've discussed this latter idea before. In theory (bringing to mind the famous Yogi Berra quote about theory and practice), people with such a status would be as close to well-behaved as those posting using their real names because they'd know that they'd be dropped and not allowed back in (or at least not until some time had passed) if they violated the rules.

    Of course, anyone could still adopt the stance of not replying to anonymous posts, even the kind I propose above.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    This board is already moderated.
    Some would say censored.

    I can't think of a time when things got out of control that Kim didn't step in.

    It doesn't need more moderation than that.

    And anyway, one person's truth is another person's rude, insulting comment.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, that's not the point. The point is that moderated anonymity might increase participation. Or are you happy with the current level (setting aside comments about whether you think there's too MUCH participation at present)?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Jeff, I did just take that stance... no reply's to anonymous but suppose an anonymous replies to me who is named?
    Then the discussion ends.... so best not to participate until the experiment is over.

    Sorry... one has to take a stance and stick to it.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    John, that's not the point. The point is that moderated anonymity might increase participation. Or are you happy with the current level (setting aside comments about whether you think there's too MUCH participation at present)?
    Yes, I missed that distinction at first.

    I suspect that a moderated anonymous forum could get really weird. Some people would be posting anonymously, others not.
    Kim would know the anonymous posters and moderate them?
    Sounds like a recipe for disaster, which may lead to fewer posters than there are now.

    There are ways to increase membership here, but I think they have to do more with who posts and how respectful, supportive and honest they are than it does with anonymity.

    I don't object to anonymity, but to have "selective anonymity" with a moderator who some think of as biased (some think this entire forum is biased) would not be attractive to many people.

    People I know who choose not to post here and often not to even read here have used words like pompous, arrogant, condescending to describe the attitudes they see from some posters. There is also this strange "blame the victim" approach that is often employed when someone has the gall to express dissatifaction over one thing or another. People who have legitimate concerns that they want to voice do not feel safe doing so because they are pounced on and "proven" in precise detail where and how they are wrong in their assertions, rather than made to feel welcome and included.

    Conversely, some of the same people who do the attacking are themselves extremely defensive and accuse others of attacking them, when in fact these people are expressing legitimate concerns. And if they should make the mistake of speaking in harshly critical language, even though it may not be disrespectful, then their questions go unanswered, ignored, made fun of, etc., so it is understandable why some would:

    a. Find this intimidating
    b. Find this annoying
    c. Find this a waste of time
    or d. All of the above.

    Me? I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •