PWC Committee Of 100 Talks Blogs
By Greg L | 22 February 2008 | Blogs, Prince William County | 47 Comments
The Prince William Committee of 100, at the behest of hard-core lefty member Lydia Gonzales (officer of Hispanic Outreach Leadership Action, supporter of Mexicans Without Borders, and driving force behind Prince William County’s taxpayer-funded Viva! Van which provides books on construction trades to day laborers), hosted a panel on blogging this evening. Apparently, with Gonzalez controlling the program, having Ben Tribbet talk about blogging in Prince William County was a good idea, but having the number one blogger in Prince William County was not. Not too surprising, really. Communists hate opposing views, especially when they prove popular, and love to stifle them at every opportunity.
Mark Fisher (of Raw Fisher) was a highlight of the evening, doing a tremendous job as moderator for the panel. Nearly half of the insightful information on this panel was provided by him during the introduction, and I really wish he had been able to respond to the questions rather than ask them. Mark is very plugged in, understands political blogging far more than most who engage in it, and would have been better suited as being one of the folks answering questions rather than the one asking them. His characterization of Virginia as the pre-eminent state for bloggers in the United States I think is right on, and he singled out Prince William County as the pre-eminent locality in Virginia for bloggers. There actually might be a couple other localities that are giving Prince William bloggers a run for our money, but we’re definitely among the top.
Ben Tribbet was another big highlight. He certainly knows what’s going on in Prince William County, and had at his fingertips information about which blogs are getting readership traction and why, and what the differences are between the different major blogs in Virginia. If you wanted a primer on the Virginia blogosphere, particularly for Northern Virginia, Ben had it for you tonight. Having the number one blogger in Virginia on this panel was a real coup for the committee, and he spoke with real authority. His kind words about yours truly probably drove Lydia Gonzales nuts, as well as Manassas Urinal-Massager editor-in-chief Susan Svilik, who was sitting at her table and appeared to get upset that a discussion nominally talking about “blogging ethics” would do anything but throw rocks at BVBL the whole night long.
Charles Reichley far exceeded my expectations of filling in for the conservative side of the aisle, while admitting that he was pretty much a non-entity in the blogging realm. It made his presence on the panel sort of strange, since you sort of were left wondering why he was there if there are only ten people who read his site, as he says. He did have some interesting things to say, and I have to give him credit for doing a good job in what must have been a difficult position being asked to be a panelist when he doesn’t really have the credentials for it. He was self-effacing and brought some humor to the panel, and I can’t imagine anyone doing better in the position he was put in here than he did this evening. Although in the end he didn’t really contribute much, because there wasn’t a whole lot he really could contribute, he definitely exceeded expectations, and by quite a bit.
Two lawyers rounded out the panel, and while what they had to say might have been interesting for a panel that would have discussed the legal landscape of blogging for bloggers, for this audience they were a complete waste of effort. The panel was supposed to be about ethics and blogging. What attorneys have to say about this is pretty thin, so they went into discussions of supreme court cases about defamation suits, legal risks for bloggers, and pretty much bored everyone who isn’t a blogger, or someone contemplating fruitless legal action against one. They pretty much destroyed whatever focus this panel had, unfortunately. Some better advice to them about what they were expected to provide might have helped a lot.
In the audience this evening was Will Vehrs of the venerable grandfather of political blogs Commonwealth Conservative, who would have been a tremendous panelist, as well as Jim Young, Jonathan Marks, Citizen Tom, and a couple of others. Notably absent was Riley from Virginia Virtucon, who would have made a great panelist who was relatively non-controversial. There was pretty clearly a richer menu of choices available for this panel, and it’s too bad the committee didn’t take advantage of these opportunities, but it’s quite possible they had little idea what opportunities they really had.
Predictably, at least half the questions related to BVBL, which I found fascinating. There was Susan Svilik whining about folks who live in a hole in the basement and mercilessly trash people, at which I really had to suppress my laughter since she has been preventing her reporters from covering local public corruption stories in the MJM for years. Maybe if she bothered to do her darned job, there wouldn’t be a need for bloggers to wade into these stories. Then there were a few die-hard lefties, some of whom have a penchant for labeling people as racists during Citizens Time at the PWBOCS meetings by name, who then whined about bullying and racism. (Yes, we now know who “independent thinker” or “The Truth” actually is) Meanwhile I’m sitting in the audience enjoying the strange phenomenon of watching panelists field questions about BVBL, sometimes not understanding the specific issue these questions related to and struggling to provide useful answers. It really demonstrated the complete inanity of allowing Lydia Gonzales control the makeup of this panel, and hopefully the committee’s leadership learned something about how hard-left communists are never going to help fulfill this organization’s goal of providing non-partisan programs.
There were a couple of other interesting things that happened this evening. Chairman Denny Daugherty refused to acknowledge the attendance of Soil & Water Board Chairman Steve Danziger among the elected officials in attendance. It might have been an oversight, but it sure didn’t look like it. He also managed to out the person who runs Citizen Tom (I’m not telling, and I hope those of you who heard will do the same), which really upset him because he had been successful in remaining anonymous for quite some time, and wasn’t at all interested in having his name become public. I had known about Citizen Tom’s identity for quite some time, but I tend to honor requests for anonymity, especially having experienced what it’s like to be in the cross-hairs. The 9500 Liberty film crew showed up this evening and worked really hard to try to get footage of me during the panel, but fortunately none other than Steve Chapman was in the sight line and I was able for the most part to use him to block the camera angle. My thanks to Steve for helping me out, even if he didn’t know it, since I’m not interested in helping these bald-faced liars who misrepresented who they were and what their intentions were when they contacted me for interviews this past summer. Sitting in an audience listening to a panel discussion should be less important than the panel discussion itself, but the film crew didn’t seem to think so, and we played hide & seek for a good portion of the night.
It was an interesting evening, but probably more interesting for me than for those of you who who weren’t there. Maybe next time they try this, the Committee of 100 will be able to refine what they were trying to do. There is potential here for some interesting content in a panel discussion, but you need to keep the communists from trying to stifle opposing viewpoints as they are wont to do, and get some folks involved that actually understand the blogs who can help refine what the panel is going to discuss and recruit panelists who have something of interest to contribute. Next time they try this, I’m pretty sure they’ll do better.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
47 Comments
Views: 1535
Loading ...
Not a bad discussion, Greg, but a couple of points:
1. RE: PN/MJM editor: Not that I have any use for her, for obvious reasons (she’s the one who fired me and replaced me with Charles on the pages of her journal), but there’s an “h” somewhere in her last name.
2. I thought it was Psychotic Racist Jonathan Mark (what was that about NOT being a Democrat?), without the “s” on the end.
3. I don’t think you’re too fair to Lydia. I’ve never been under the impression that she’s a “hard-core lefty.” She likes me well enough.
4. The crew from 9500 Liberty actually was not too well-liked by those running the meeting, for precisely the reason you cite. We (the Committee of 100) really need a policy barring independent filming of these events. It’s just not fair to the audience (including you), most of whom are there to watch and listen, not become the subject themselves.
5. It sounds a little like sour grapes to complain that you weren’t asked to participate. An 800-pound gorilla on the panel would tend to defeat the purpose of a discussion of general issues, and while not a part of the decisionmaking process, I suspect that may have been why you weren’t invited to participate. Isn’t it adequate that you were in the room?
Wow, thanks for the run-down, Greg, that was great. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but knowing in advance that super-blogger “Charles” would be on the panel and that our favorite, James Young would be there didn’t do a lot to make me cancel other commitments.
Greg,
Seems like you were the star of ths show, even if you were only in the audience. Glad to hear that Ben got the real facts out there regarding who’s blogs are having an impact. Also, you were very gracious in your comments regarding Charles.
What the whole affair shows is that Blogs are prime-time, inspite of Sihvilik’s protestations. I am sure her stomach tunred when Ben let the audience know that BVBL is the #1 PWC Blog, and one of the top in the state.
Since you were the subject of a significant portion of the evening, I decided make a visit. I was curious as to how you would react.
Your commentary was interesting, but the backhanded slap of Charles Reichley was unnecessary. While Charles may not have your noteriety, he was invited to participate on the panel with good reason. You should not have been surprised by his good performance.
The lawyers also added considerably to the discussion, but given your legal troubles, I can sympathize with why you might think otherwise.
Go back and read your post again. Much of this post was about you, not just your opinion, but about you. For example, you think you should have been on the panel. You think you earned the right. Perhaps your pride is justified, perhaps, but it did not happen. Why?
Your immediate explanation as to why you were not selected to participate on the panel may be correct; I have no idea. However, if our lives are ruled by God, then ultimately everything that happens to us comes to us as a blessing — even if this blessing comes disguised as a seeming curse. Instead of being a participant, God made you a spectator. How were you blessed?
BTW - Thank you for respecting my desire for privacy. As I would not handle it any better than you, I have no desire for notoriety.
What’s the one thing worse than people “talking bad” about you?
People not talking about you at all.
Hold on a minute Greg, and check out their web-site. http://www.pwc100.org/board.htm
The president is Denny Daugherty who ran and won the vice-chair of the PWCRC to support Kopko who was preparing for the 51st Delegate convention while working for Faisal Gill.
Gonzalez may have had a beef with you about HSM but didn’t Daugherty have a bigger beef with you for attacking Gill? Gonzalez isn’t listed on the board of directors, hard to believe she had any real influence.
Kopko and Daugherty worked on Gill’s campaign team. Seems rather suspicious to me. Maybe someone deliberately mislead you on the truth of why you weren’t invited to participate?
I would like to know if readership numbers are down for the MJM. Svilik doesn’t understand that she has pissed off residents with her illegal alien apologist diatribes. She can’t stand the word alien and therefore changes letters to the editor to read, “undocumented” or “immigrant”. Well, she did allow “illegal immigrant.”
Ms. Svilik, this is the definition of alien in The McGraw-Hill Children’s Dictionary:
“Alien noun 1. someone who lives in a country who is not a citizen of that country.”
Ms. Svilik did you ever play the game, “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader”. Maybe you can play the game with Nancy L. and John S. They may have a Spanish version so you can play with Ricardo J. I know they are all good friends of yours.
“Ari,” you’re a moron. But then again, you conspiracy theorists frequently demonstrate that “quality.”
Kopko supported Trent Barton — not Daugherty — for the post of Vice Chairman.
It would make you look less stupid if your rants were informed by even a minimal familiarity with the facts.
And how is it you knew I would be there, “Freedom”? I don’t recall sharing my plans with anyone but Trish Redmond.
Greg, it’s very very obvious that a panel on blogging in PWC should have included you on the panel. You are right to be a little peeved about your exclusion, especially when it could be easily predicted (and come to fruition) that BVBL would be the biggest topic of the evening.
Did Chapman ask any inane questions or bitch about BVBL?
jimmy, there ya go again…not only name-calling but seizing on a relatively small part of Ari’s post and ignoring his REAL point…that unlike Greg, DD, like you and Tom Kopko, supported the “no chance in hell” candidate to represent the 51st District in the HOD. There is NO doubt whatsoever but what Ari’s reasoning is correct.
Ya know jimmy, I truly feel sorry for you, it’s truly a shame that so many here (myself included) continually take shots at you. You must enjoy it though because most people do not appreciate your arrogance and name-calling. I don’t know of anyone who has called you a “moron.” Oh yes, as I recall, angry blackman called you a “racist,” but aside from that, I can’t think of another person who has labelled you with such disparaging titles as you so frequently spout about others. Get a grip, young man. If you were to lighten up a bit, I think you, like the rest of us, would find BVBL much more enjoyable and rewarding.
James Young, must you continue to call people names because they have different opinion that you?
Again, your calling other posters name or attempting to only shows your frustration. Also, it raises your blood pressure (it’s obvious) so settle down and continue to post. I mean, it’s not like you can do anything to anyone so relax…
Ari Stotle - Denny Daugherty is a gentleman. In so far as I know, he does not hold grudges. The PWC100 exists for debate. The prestige of the PWC100 comes from having good debates. How do you have debate without inviting the other side?
Greg knows Daugherty. Like as not, that is why he did not accuse Daugherty of keeping him off the panel. However, that did not stop Greg from making a big deal out of something off the wall (Daugherty not recognizing Steve Danziger). Go figure.
Jim, Freedom has a point. You have an excellent grasp of the the English language. Use it.
Yeah, “Fredo,” “name-calling.” ‘Cept, I didn’t call “Ari” “Moron”; I said he is a “moron.” Too bad you can’t tell the difference between a description of a state of being with a “name.” What I’m doing to you now, by calling you “Fredo” — the name of the wimpy, cowardly, ineffective Corleone brother — is “name-calling.” Please note that I did NOT do so until you decided to start (”jimmy”) the very “name-calling” which you purport to condemn … when it does not suit your purposes.
And spare me your crocodile tears, “Fredo.” You don’t “truly feel sorry for” me. You “continually take shots” at me while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity because it apparently gives meaning to your otherwise pathetic life to “take shots” at your betters.
And a “relatively small part”?!?!?! Are you really that profoundly ignorant? It was the factual premise (”Denny Daugherty … ran and won the vice-chair of the PWCRC to support Kopko”) of his entire post: an obviously faulty factual premise.
As for you, “Angry Blackman!”, as explained above, I called no one a “name” until “Fredo” decided to start it. And I described “Ari” as a “moron” not because he has a “different opinion” than me (to which he is entitled) but because he premises his opinion with a naked falsehood. “Frustration”? Hardly. My BP is just fine, thank you very much.
OT, but a little more relevant than what’s been placed on this thread: WAMU is having a program on illegal immigration in the area starting now.
For those of you that think the Committee of 100 need some tweaking, why not join and get your oar in the water. I doubt if Lydia was on the board that picked the panel. I feel the Committee has more sense than to include her in anything.
Freedom, make sure you get it correct if you’re gonna use my name. First, I never called Jimmy a racist…this title went to George Allen so in the future, re-read the postings that I put up.
Jimmy and I had a disagreement but I never did call him or anyone else on this board a racist. Now while Jimmy Crack Corn (and I don’t care
gets heated and sometimes goes overboard, I like the different flava that he brings to this board. Yes he does get heated some but the Alpha Male is just like a lion…when we roar so to speak, we just wanna make sure it’s heard whether it’s a roar or just some hot air.
DD doesn’t hold grudges? …you have got to be joking CT.
Politics is like football..You will never see Skin’s fans rooting for the Cowboys, and if someone actually did then Jimmy would be quick to jump on the conspiracy theory. Or, maybe they’re a biggot or racist. Sounds ridiculous because it IS!
Anyone who didn’t support Faisal Gill will always be part of the problem in the eyes of some GOPs.
If you didn’t support Faisal…then you must be a racist or biggot.
My recommendation to releasing your frustration and anger at anyone on this blog, is not to “name” them directly, but to speak to an abstract “trait” at large, or to the audience readership in general, as bad or unacceptable behavior for an intellectual, considerate and polite person. Whenever possible it is smarter, and makes your words more respectable and powerful when you avoid personal attacks completelyl, and instead simply attack the bad behavior, destructive principal and self-destructive ideology. Only in very rare cases, and really insensitive, malicious verbal abuse, should you call someone out directly, and then it helps when others will likely agree with you and openly support it.
I admit I have often struggled to supress anger at some really ignorant or blantly malicious person, and have lost control of my fingers in the heat of the emotion, but learning to stop personal attacks can only make this blog less stressful and more enjoyable to read, rather than signing off with a feeling of walking through a lynch mob.
The very first comment I ever made on this blog was to recommend all readers take the moral high ground on the illegal immigration issue, and argue from a neutral unbiased position. Attacking people, and labeling them only invokes a defensive irrational “repetitive stored brain pattern” response. These responses are controlled by emotional chemical receptors that flood the brain and chemically become addictive to the cells receptors, killing off the receptors that respond to other emotional cocktails such as thoughtful analysis and personal restraint. Brains are not completely controllable, and a person is not completely in control of how they act even though they think they are. All intelligence and behavioras are based on the chemical patterns and strength of pathways to chemical receptors, the number of them and the volume of hormones from the brain’s sensor and control celss to the emotional response cells. It takes many repetitive experiences (of eoither love or hate) to change the concentration of these receptors and in turn change the emotional behavior of a person. Talking to a person in neutral, constructive terms, rather then threatening, destructive terms, changes the concentration of these receptors, eventually changing the person’s opinion and emotional reaction to a political ideology. When you avoid name calling and labeling, people respect that, otherwise they just tune you out and you never have converts willing to consider, respect and heed your opinion as a better solution to a bad problem.
Some of you I know, think you are in complete control of your every thought and emotions, even philosophy of life. But as a human brain you are very repetitively predictable. Put you into a hostile place, prision cell or hostile war zone and you WILL become a different person that you are today.
You are ultimately (your very intellect, opinions, and thoughts), what type of cell receptor populations and affinities you create as repetatively stored pattern of experiences, contradictions, consistencies and “concept labeled” chains of proteins and cellular relationships (connected neurons).
My advice is to store less hostile, more harmoneous chemical patterns that define who you are.
The Commitee of 100 does not have sence on many things. Dougherty a few years back caused the Committee to really fall off.
Jimmy did not help,as he had a say in who was on the panels and many of those were a disaster.
Lydia is not capable of putting anything together. She is far one sided and has been for years`. How she managed to stay as a teacher at Woodbridge High is beyond all of us who had children there over the years.
The Multi Culture system, sure has alot of left winged people and this needs to change.
So maybe it was Dougherty, Jimmy and Lydia who met and worked out the panel???
Greg, you can be proud of your blog site. It does very well compared to many others.
Jimmy always gets a little nasty when he’s not the center of attention. I always found when he lashed out it was because he didn’t have people bowing to him. He knew he was wrong.
For those of you who play repetitive games, be aware of the intensity of the emotions you walk away from the game with. They WILL remain with you, and can affect how you feel and respond to others until you have a greater quantity or more intense emotional and intellectual experiences that are even more repetitive and positive experiences to change them.
My grandmother was very wise. She had a very wise principal that guided her. “If you lie down with dogs, you will wake up with fleas”. She understood the medical mechanics of the brain using that simple principal more than anyone I know.
Of the hundreds of thousands of things (chemical patterns) that define a person, any one person making a comment about them, can only point out less than a dozen as if they defined the entire essence of the person. And they expect us to believe that. My term for that is naiviety, gullability, and ignorance. That is why thousands of observers and commentators can all be wrong about the true nature of an individual person.
It is better to talk abstract “principals” rather than define “all that a person is” in one short newpaper style bullet.
Thanks C, sometimes I enjoy the blog more when we can all lighten it up a little and pass out some good behavior wisdom for the benefit of all of us.
edit*
Way kick the weekend off, fellas. Enjoy yourselves.
“If you lie down with dogs, you will wake up with fleas”.
So true it’s down right scary, Michael.
I was invited to come, But I Couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy of Ben lecturing us on ethics, after the way he Borked George Allen
Angry Blackman! said on 22 Feb 2008 at 1:02 pm:
Jimmy and I had a disagreement but I never did call him or anyone else on this board a racist.
***********************
Be careful, looks like you called me one in this post from a previous thread:
Angry Blackman! said on 8 Feb 2008 at 6:56 am:
I think whoever Medic is, he’s one who has an agenda and it won’t work. His comments about black people were very offensive and one of the reasons why I’m hesitant about certain things. HSM is a good idea but let’s make sure the common goal is to rid the area of all “illegals”…which means any person who is here illegally no matter where he or she is from.
Let’s make sure the undercover racism does not rear it’s ugly head so the types like Medic or whoever made the comments about black people are filtered out from HSM!
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2008/02/06/abdulla-is-smuggling-illegal-aliens/#comment-53417
*******************
What I really want to talk about is the bilingual “Literacy Night” at Mullen Elementary last night for grades K-2, complete with translation of remarks into Spanish, hall signs in Spanish, and cold calling every parent’s house with messages first in English and then in Spanish.
A quick admin note here:
When I have the chance to police the threads, I do remove comments from threads in order to try keep the peace, remove ugly content, bring the discussion back on track, or simply because I feel like it. Sometimes that makes some people unhappy, and I understand that. On balance I think it’s made quite a few people pleased that access to comment treads is largely free from restrictions, and managed so as to make them provide value for readers.
The bits and bytes of your comments are stored on my hard drives that I bought, and I pay the electric bill that keeps them spinning. I can choose to store the electrons you’ve sacrificed, or liberate them into the vast entropy of the universe. If you want ensure these bits and bytes are preserved for posterity, and disagree with my decisions, you are free to purchase your own hard drives, power them on your own dime, house them in a computer you buy, and maintain it with your own spare time. You cannot compel me to pay to preserve your pearls of wisdom, or promote them to the world on your behalf.
While BVBL enjoys the opportunity to express political speech free of government censorship, it does not assume a responsibility to pay for the storage, maintenance provision, and promotion of your free speech at my expense.
I hope that clears things up for a few folks.
I should have acknowledged the fact that you didn’t call me a “racist,” “Angry,” but I didn’t much care — as anyone who knows me would have laughed at such an accusation, and your peurile name-calling speaks volumes — and didn’t feel like reviewing your comments.
As for who picked the panel, I don’t know who did; I can only say that I had nothing to do with it. In fact, for what hindsight is worth, had I been asked, I probably would have suggested that Greg would have been a good choice, though I defended the failure to invite him as a defensible position above. While I was on the board of the C100 for a time, professional and other commitments precluded very much involvement. Thus, “Woodbridge Waiting’s” comment is simply inaccurate, as is his nonsense about being the “center of attention,” bold words from someone who comments here, and joins in the attempt to MAKE ME the center of attention. I tried to decline when Marc Fisher asked bloggers to stand. I hardly needed more attention, as I received a couple of nice comments by the panel, two of whom I had only met that night.
My first notice of this panel was when I received the newsletter. Much like everyone else.
Greg,
As the moderator of this blog you have that right. If I have posted something in the past that didn’t suit your guidelines as the moderator, I apologize.
I appreciate having the place to voice my opinions. Thank you for putting forth the effort to provide this place on the web for us to discuss issues. I know how much of a thankless job it can be moderating things like this.
No, medic, you’ve nothing to apologize for, nor does anyone else.
“My advice is to store less hostile, more harmoneous chemical patterns that define who you are.’
Dude….Way! BE excellent to eachother, and PARTY ON! If you are going to catch some waves, make sure you only ride the positive ones…. Don’t be bogus…’casue that’s just , well bogus. Did you hear that? That was my skull….I am SOOO wasted…
Greg, if your server breaks, no problem. My dad is a TV repairman. He’s got an AWESOME set of tools.
Interesting point of view, brought up about blocking and moderation concepts, related to ownership rights. Contrasting that to open public speech, and the laws governing that, such dialog shows the great difference between the two concepts of individual liberties, discussed under the constitution and ownership rights, either personal or state.
Here are some other ownership situations to ponder and compare.
1. I own the house, therefore you can only say what I will allow in my house, you cannot tresspass or do whatever you want in my home without my permission. However I cannot shoot you except in self defense.
2. I don’t own the airways, public radio waves, but the government can censor them, because they own them. I have free speech laws that limit what I can say in public, primarily based on the politics of man-made religious doctrine.
3. I don’t own the public telephone lines, but the phone company has no right to eavesdrop or change my content before it gets to the intended audience. The government however can tap this, but only under court order or rights under Anti-Terrorism laws. My company owns my e-mail and internet acount and can fire me for what I say or read on their intranet.
4. I don’t own the space in a church, but church members have a right to censor what is said in public, but not in private and can be legally held accountable for what they say (defamation), but not for what they preach. Unless they preach revolution, subversion of the state, or the killing of public officials.
5. I don’t own the space in a parking lot, or the air in a theater, but I can be held legally acountable for yelling “fire”, or verbally abusing a patron, but can yell or post anything I want as long as it is on public property or land I own to annoy others without legal rights to shut me up.
6. I own the content of what’s printed in a newspaper, but can control what gets said, or printed whatever personal political view I want to express. I can be influenced by others politically, but cannot be imprisioned for saying anything I want about the government or public officials, except things prohibited by decency laws or incompatible with current Supreme Court rullings regarding race, religion, gender or ethnic group comments. I can protect my sources legally, even if what I learn is criminal.
7. I can be held liable for anything I say in a public venue, write in a book, and in fact can be held legally acountable for anything I permit to persist in a public venue that can cause or support a crime, therefore I am obligated to control that content to avoid a legal consequence
8. I own my sidewalk but must clean it of snow to avoid a personal lawsuit should a person fall and slip, even though they trespass without my permission, I am still responsible legally for their lack of skill for walking over ice and snow.
9. I don’t own my street, and so don’t have to clear it of snow. and am not legally liable for anything that happens on it, except a law I break.
10. I can do whatever I want until somebody takes me to court and wins, or makes my life so miserable politically, that I will succumb to the political pressure under threat of embarrassment or exposure of the truth I don’t want people to know about.
All of these concepts involve censorship and ownership issues, the concepts of public deceit, privacy, free speech and laws made to protect the individual from prosecution over what is said, based on what I own or by others on what I own and what they own. It is interesting that all these free speech concepts and ownership rights are so inconsistant, IMHO.
Even the Soviets recognized the power of censorship for political purpose and could rationalize its use based on whoever was the self appointed judge of law, good taste and political ideology.
In my opinion it all comes down to personal social responsibilities, that vary with the political ideology of the person and how much they get away with before they are held accountable for hurting others.
On occassion I have seen bad judgement from a legal and social perspective, but who has a right to define bad judgement? For the most part blocking seems reasonable when it is breaking some law and unreasonable when it is not, especially if you offer a public venue, even though you can claim it is not.
Of course few laws currently cover blogs, compared to other public venues because blogs are too new.
Rick Bentley said on 22 Feb 2008 at 2:36 pm:
What I really want to talk about is the bilingual “Literacy Night”
Did you happen to catch the “debate” last night? Hillary is against English as being the “official” language of this country and sees no problem with all English speakers having to learn Spanish.
“Did you happen to catch the “debate” last night?”
People actually watch those things?
Wow..Michael! That is some serious research and information you’ve provided. I hope it is posted in other places on the Net so more people have the opportunity to read it.
I think Ben and Greg together on the panel would have been THE BEST!
Greg, thanks for the kind words, I guess. Although I don’t remember saying I only had 10 readers, I am aware of my relative standing in the blog world.
I had hoped to bring up your coverage of the Rack and Roll, to chastise the news media for not either digging in and getting to the truth one way or another. I think it would have made a better discussion given Marc’s presence and Susan’s.
I agree with you in part about the lawyer/blogger split. I happen to like the policy/lawyer talk, but it was like a separate topic from the bloggers. In my opinion it would have been better to just have 4 bloggers, and to cover the legal aspects if they wanted another month. But I’m not going to fault the committee, I’m not sure that was clear to them ahead of time (it became clear to me when trying to prepare).
For Ari Stotle,
There is a lot more out there that covers the mechanisms but this is a good example.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061001204452.htm
For Ari Stotle,
A lot more out there on the subject, here’s a few good references to start the process, then read some research whitepapers of the last year.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061001204452.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/brain.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/071004-stress-memory.html
For Ari Stotle,
I post a few references, really interesting research going on in this hormone and brain receptor field and its affect on our emotions, intelligence and behavior, especially in recent whitepapers and neuro-journals. Unfortunately Greg’s spam filter stopped them. If he posts them later I think you will find them a good read.
If you truly like Aristotle, suggest a very good book “The Discoveries”, Great Breakthrought in 20th Centry Science. Alan Lightman.
It includes excerpts from original papers of the scientists making the discoveries. I’m a fan of collecting and reading the original works, Euclid, Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Pauling, Maxwell, Feynmann, Plank, Hawkings, Penrose, etc, etc, etc are some of my heros. I only wish I was born half as smart as some of them.
Another good one which includes the ancients discoveries, i.e. Mayan’s venus tables, Aristotle’s de caelo, Aristarcus, Eratosthenes, and 71 others, is “Archives of the Universe”, Mary Bartusiak with original thinkers paper’s and excerpts included.
The original papers are IMHO so much more enlightening than the modern textbooks we condense into a few homework problems. I wish instructors would teach from the original papers.
SL, Communism was built on political deception and deceit, thus making it very dangerous to have an original thought or idea, especially published for others to read and assess. Religious history has many parallels in the way the leaders of the churches treated the people with control and oppression of political and scientific voice.
My good friend Ed, is writing a book for the CIA on Deception and Deceit techniques” and how it is prevelant in modern politics to fool the people, manipulate truth, and hide the truth so you can do whatever you want politically.
Here’s the youtube of the evening.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5076637759048192623&hl=en
Greg,
I think you saw Compassionate Conservative NOT Indpendent Thinker.
For the record, Independent Thinker was not in the audience at the meeting of Committee of 100. The person in question was not she.
That was a very interesting panel discussion on the ethics of blogging. I believe Laf will post the link to it.
Ben Tribbett lecturing on blogging ethics. That IS rich!!!
Tribbett uses his blog to call candidates for office things such as the “South County B!tch” and “Downballot D0uche Bags” and to spread defamation of other bloggers such as when he peddled the “discovery” that someone had registered a web site for the Old Dominion Blog Alliance and forwarded it to the NAMBLA web site. Of course, it all got traced back to him and Joe Stanley in the end.
Seriously, does anyone not drinking the Kos Kool Aid even go to his pathetic web site anymore?