Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Is it legal, ethical, appropriate for the site owner to post here?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Is it legal, ethical, appropriate for the site owner to post here?

    Well, of course itís legal and itís not unethical.
    But is it appropriate?

    If you are the SC, Tracy, Ben or Steve, I suspect the answer would be yes, absolutely!

    But several people Iíve spoken with, do not feel that way.
    And Iím not referring to Dawn Davies, who claims to not even visit this site to read the posts. Iím referring to several other people who donít want to waste their time posting here.

    From one of them, who shall remain nameless, ďKim just constantly defends the SC and tries to make them out to be perfect angels, capable of only good thingsĒ

    I agree. And this seems completely inappropriate.

    Her post against Alan - "Is use of waylandmass.us domain name misleading?" Ė seemed to be more of a distraction away from the real issues with the SC website than any meaningful, legitimate complaint about injustice.

    Prior to that, Iíve noticed some posts that I had made that were clearly directed at Jeff, where Kim jumps in, gets her own dialogue going with me and then of course by the time Jeff returns, itís easy for him to ignore my post to him because it was so long ago.

    I realize that I am also guilty of jumping in when a question is asked of someone else, but thereís a time and a place and a degree for everything, and I make efforts not to hijack the thread in the process, which Kim has done on more than one occasion. Anyway, I donít own this site.

    So, while I think the answers from most people would be pretty predictable, and this might be more of a rhetorical question than anything, is it appropriate for Kim to be jumping in and defending the SC on so many threads?
    John Flaherty

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    The "question" that appears in the first post above is just plain silly and needn't be dignified with an answer.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Well, of course itís legal and itís not unethical.
    But is it appropriate?

    If you are the SC, Tracy, Ben or Steve, I suspect the answer would be yes, absolutely!?
    I think it is inappropriate for you to attach any "suspected answers" to my name. Please stop trying to put people into us vs. them groups. It is childish and does not focus on the issues. I will certainly respond myself if I feel so inclined John-

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Iím referring to several other people who donít want to waste their time posting here.
    So you're doing it for them? ok, so you have this friend who thinks something...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    From one of them, who shall remain nameless, ďKim just constantly defends the SC and tries to make them out to be perfect angels, capable of only good thingsĒ

    I agree. And this seems completely inappropriate..
    John, people (Kim included) are entitled to their own opinions. You really should reconsider reading these posts if you (or your friend) find it "inappropriate" when anyone expresses an opinion you don't agree with/understand/etc. In what possible way is it inappropriate for someone to express their opinion? Why do you find it so intolerable and bizarre when anyone expresses an opinion you disagree with?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Her post against Alan - "Is use of waylandmass.us domain name misleading?" Ė seemed to be more of a distraction away from the real issues with the SC website than any meaningful, legitimate complaint about injustice.
    Kim's post was not "against" Alan. We are not on teams here--it was a thoughtful inquiry regarding a topic she wished to discuss. Her issues (and everyone else's) are just as "real, meaningful and legitimate" as the issues in which you choose to participate. I find it very disrespectful for you to charge that anyone's post be considered a "distraction away from" what you believe to be "the real issues". Believe it or not, people do have thoughts other than those relating directly to the SC. When I feel uninterested, I simply don't bother reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Prior to that, Iíve noticed some posts that I had made that were clearly directed at Jeff, where Kim jumps in, gets her own dialogue going with me and then of course by the time Jeff returns, itís easy for him to ignore my post to him because it was so long ago.
    If you have an exchange you'd like directly with Jeff, I'd suggest communicating with him through any other means, except that of a public discussion site! I think Jeff has addressed the many reasons he may "ignore" a post and I didn't see "Kim posted" as one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    I realize that I am also guilty of jumping in when a question is asked of someone else, but thereís a time and a place and a degree for everything, and I make efforts not to hijack the thread in the process, which Kim has done on more than one occasion. Anyway, I donít own this site.
    So it sounds as if the "time and place and degree for everything" is defined by you? Kim is clearly posting as herself and does not forfeit her right to use the discussion board because she "owns this site"!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    So, while I think the answers from most people would be pretty predictable, and this might be more of a rhetorical question than anything, is it appropriate for Kim to be jumping in and defending the SC on so many threads?
    By "jumping in" I assume you mean participating?
    and by "defending the SC" I assume you mean offering her opinion?
    Well then yes, I think it is appropriate for all of us, especially Kim, who spends so much time making it possible for us to have these discussions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    44

    Default Are You Serious?

    John, as you might know from previous posts on this board, it can sometimes be difficult to determine whether or not a post is meant to be serious or humorous. I know from your postings on another thread that you felt that Kim should not even have raised her question about Alan's URL, waylandmass.us. It has struck me that the question you pose on this thread could be tongue in cheek. However, given that I don't know you (and given that it is my view that close to 100% of what you write in your posts is not meant to be humorous) and at the risk of appearing foolish by responding seriously to an attempt on your part to be humorous, I am going to respond as though you are being serious.

    I definitely understand that you vehemently disagree with much of what Kim writes regarding school issues, particularly those that relate to the School Committee. I have enjoyed reading your posts on both this board and on the Crier board, and I think that you have made many articulate statements supporting your points of view, particularly about the Loker decision. However, having read and reread your post on this thread, I must say that I do not understand your point of view. Please state clearly what you believe the relationship is between Kim's ownership of the web site and the lack of appropriateness of her stating her opinions on this discussion board. As far as I can tell, Kim is scrupulous with regard to keeping her opinions out of every portion of the enews website other than this board. And, also as far as I can tell, Kim, as owner of the board, does not give herself any more access to the board (other than to make technical modifications) than anyone else, as long as they comply with the rules, which appear to me to be simple, logical and reasonable.

    As an aside, given Kim's articulateness and diligence in thoroughly thinking through issues, and the respectful and civil way in which she expresses herself, I can't imagine why you would want to discourage her from participating in this forum. And, as to "jumping in" to a discussion on this board, isn't that what it's all about? Don't we actually all "jump in" whenever we want? So, I would appreciate it if you would let us all know precisely what is "inappropriate" about the owner's participation on this board.

    If you choose to reply to this post, I would respectfully request that you don't lump me in with any groups or assume that my opinions are predictable. We don't know each other personally, and have never had a conversation with each other except for perhaps one very minor exchange on the Crier discussion board, and you don't know my views on most subjects. And, I promise you that my views are anything but predictable.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default We are complex creatures

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrie Glick View Post
    If you choose to reply to this post, I would respectfully request that you don't lump me in with any groups or assume that my opinions are predictable.... And, I promise you that my views are anything but predictable.
    Lawrie, I appreciate your request about not lumping people in with any groups or assuming that your opinions are predictable. I find that people are often far more complex than we give them credit for. Rarely (other than, it seems, in our federal Congress) do you find large groups of people whose opinions you can count on all the time.

    I would expect to be afforded the same courtesy; that is, you do not know my opinion about anything unless Iíve expressed it. For example, how many of you would have thought that I disagree with the decision the School Committee made to reconfigure the elementary schools?

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
  •