|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 6, 2007 13:50:07 GMT -5
Here are some of the rules for posting on a responsible forum elsewhere that I'm a member of:
NO: Offensive language. Links to inappropriate content. Spam or advertising. Personal attacks of any kind. Comment on ideas, not people. Inflammatory or meritless messages intended to provoke emotional responses. (Not to be confused with a meaningful and congenial expression of a sincerely held belief or opinion that may differ from the norm.) Shouting. PLEASE DO NOT POST IN ALL CAPS!!! Repeated posting of the same or similar messages.
Can you identify how many of these rules are regularly broken on the Castanet forum (under the watchful eyes of Jo, the administrator)?
|
|
hello
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by hello on Apr 5, 2008 18:34:06 GMT -5
Though I do not see eye to eye with some of the opinions in this forum regarding castanet, I did recently have a unsettling experience with the admin, Jo. I was censored and sternly warned for touching, in a benign way, an obviously sensitive subject. Jo does seem intent to censor any material however trivial regarding subjects she does not like.
I searched to see if others have had this happen to them and came across this forum and I see others have had negative experiences with the mods and admin, its a shame.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Oct 20, 2008 10:14:32 GMT -5
I haven't been to the Castanet forum in a long time, but with the civic election on and there being a thread on my candidacy I thought I'd take a peek. Nothing much has changed -- the same bunch of idiots making the same stupid remarks which are tolerated by an ineffective moderator. Those who can't get their inane comments published as letters to the editor have found a welcome home at the Castanet forum where they can anonymously engage in personal attacks and slander without facing any discipline.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Oct 26, 2008 13:33:57 GMT -5
Yesterday at an all candidates forum on sustainaiblity, Councillor Robert Hobson observed how "nasty" the comments on the Castanet forum were not only about him but other candidates as well. It is obvious that I am not the only candidate for office who is critical of the low level of the commentary there which is passively tolerated by their moderator.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 3, 2008 0:53:43 GMT -5
NIce try, Fluffy, but stating that there are ignorant comments and people posting on the Castanet forum does not imply that everyone who posts there is ignorant. In fact there are a few intelligent comments on this thread but not many. But being a developer which you probably will try to deny, I am sure that you have no reason to try to defame me. What did you say your real name is? Do you have the courage to tell everyone or do you prefer to defame people anonymously?
Yes, I was banned from the Castanet forum, something that I consider to be a red badge of courage and it wasn't for the reason you stated but rather because I disputed a call by the administrator who is very touchy about that sort of thing. I would say that you, Fluffy, are the one who is guilt of "considerable rude and obnoxious behaviour" as are others there but the rules have never been applied equally to everyone otherwise you probably would have been banned to.
But I'm sure that if everything you say is true that you would have no problem standing behind it by revealing your real name and facing whatever legal consequence might befall you. Do you have any courage Fluffy or are you just a big bag of hot air?
But Fluffy does have one good idea in suggesting that people don't just take his slanderous word for it and that they read my campaign website (www.saveparadise.com) where they will find a list of issues and practical solutions that I offer for these problems. They are quite different from the platitudes without politicies that are on the websites of many other candidates. In calling me a one-issue candidate, he has obviously never read it. But then, why should he? He isn't interested in issues but only in slander and personal attacks. Will you be telling us your real name now, Fluffy? People who won't back up what they say with their name have no credibility. That is why no self-respecting newspaper will publish a letter to the editor that isn't signed, but any irresponsible person can post the most outlandish falsehood on an internet forum. Which are you?
Fluffy is also correct in suggesting that he being an insignificant person, no one should pay any attention to his tireless efforts to defame me. Therefore, I would advise any intelligent reader to ignore him and treat his remarks as the musing of a crank.
(Incidentally, those who are interested in the history of this thread should read pages 1-3 as well as 4, which you are on now.)
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 3, 2008 17:17:38 GMT -5
I see that the cowards are still sniping away anonymously, John. That's actually a good sign, as it shows that they are worried about the fact that many people are taking you seriously.
Keep up the great work!
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 9, 2008 10:37:53 GMT -5
I think that if internet forums required participants to use their real names, it would raise the level of discourse considerably and do away with a lot of the mean-spirited remarks, as it would make people a lot more responsible for what they say unless they don't mind showing the world what airheads they really are.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 10, 2008 11:00:56 GMT -5
I'm sorry, members of the Castanet forum, but I will not be answering your questions relating to the 2008 municipal election there. I have been treated with considerable rudeness and disrespect by many members of that forum in the past and having recently checked it out, I don't think that anything has changed. You have no one but yourselves to blame. Good luck with your ongoing hate campaign. Intelligent people can tell the difference between well-reasoned criticism and outright hate and your credibility is further weakened with each additional malicious remark.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 10, 2008 22:10:57 GMT -5
What a ridiculous fuss some of the people on the Castanet forum are making about my "Do not vote for" list! As all the candidates that I listed there are in favour of the downtown CD Zone and I am opposed to it, of course I am going to recommend that voters not vote for them. One individual even referred to it as "negative campaigning." As all I said was don't vote for the candidates on the list because they are in favour of the CD Zone, how does that qualify as "negative campaigning"? Compare that to certain obsessive individuals on the Castanet forum who have countless and sometimes lengthy posts finding fault with every possible thing about me. Now which is more negative? I feel sorry for those individuals, who are motivated by hate. As I have said before, people who don't have the courage to back up what they say with their names have no credibility. Why would anyone consider the opinion or take the advice of an anonymous person who they don't know anything about, some of who aren't even residents of Kelowna? So let the children have their malicious fun playing in the mud while the rest of us get back to the real campaign of issues and the need to bring about some meaningful change on city council. For my position on the issues go to my campaign website at www.savekelowna.com. Please let my position on the issues be the deciding factor in who gets your vote and not the sick views of the hate mongerers on the Castanet forum.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 11, 2008 11:04:13 GMT -5
To Fluffy (the Penticton resident to whom I referred) -- I would like the person who called my ethics into question on the Castanet forum to state his full real name and the specifics of his accusation as his accusation is defamatory and as such is very serious. If he or she refuses to do that then readers should ingore that malicious lie and eveything else they say. (And why don't you post the entirety of my previous post here on the Castanet forum instead of just part of it.) This is the last that you'll be hearing from me, Fluffy, as I have better things to do than to play your games. I'm sorry for you if you don't. Your motto says "Personal insult is the final refuge of the defeated." Well, I guess you have just admitted to your own defeat.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 11, 2008 11:32:42 GMT -5
Fluffy-- "Internet anonymity is a time-tested and readily accepted form of personal protection. I most certainly will not be supplying any personal information on my sources to you. "
Internet anonymity allows for the writer to make any kind of remark whether it be true or not without taking any responsibility for those remarks and, as such, only protects the writer and not the object of their defamation. It is cowardly and so are you. I invite you right here and now to make this a level playing field by supplying me with your full name and address. If you don't, I will take it as an admission of your cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 11, 2008 11:40:28 GMT -5
Fluffy -- "we both know that there are bad people out there."
Yes, and you are one of them.
Fluffy -- "This whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all if you would simply address the question."
This isn't a court of law and you aren't a judge but rather some nutbar who has too much time on his hands. If someone wants to accuse me of unethical behaviour let them state their full name and I will answer those accusations in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 11, 2008 12:37:07 GMT -5
As I said, they're just a bunch of cowards, and clearly acting prepubescent to boot. It's evident that every criticism aimed at you is really about them instead.
In the face of all of that, thanks for having the courage to run for council and face the public scrutiny, John. Your willingness to tackle the hard issues that everyone else wants to avoid is exemplary.
None of those Castanitwits would ever have the guts to do what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 11, 2008 12:57:57 GMT -5
As all the candidates that I listed there are in favour of the downtown CD Zone and I am opposed to it, of course I am going to recommend that voters not vote for them. Excellent, John. Despite what the Castanitwits say, the voting public have a right to know who and what they are voting for, and against.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 11, 2008 13:21:03 GMT -5
Fluffy, as a resident of Penticton why do you care so much about my candidacy for city council in Kelowna? As I said before, I see you as a useless individual who has too much time on his hands. Why don't you use that time constructively to do some volunteer work and be of some use to society?
|
|