8/15/2006

OTBL's Answer to Dissenting Opinions....



HAHA - Wow, They actually did it. They deleted me. *sigh* That just made my day.

19 comments:

AndyRand said...

Way to Go Josh!! Another victim of the Free Speech advocates protecting their lunitic fringe from dissent.

Maybe the admin here could adopt the OTBL model for free speech!!

Watch out CATO, That could mean you're
on notice. But of course CATO knows us better than that. I think he'll be commenting again.

Josh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Josh said...

The best part about all of this is these people sit side by side with us in the community, work with us, shop with us, etc...

Yet none of them have the (dare I say balls?, naw.. ) audacity, self respect to say this stuff in person.

OTBL Members - I'm sure I know many of you. I'm sure many of you are the parents of my peers and I'm sure many of you work in town.. and here's what I have to say to you...


" I disagree with you, but have a nice day! "

That's right.. the same thing I'd say in person. You can't delete real people... so come back down to reality and stop living in your little fantasty world over there.. LEARN SOME RESPECT! (which is a little ironic given their post about the south understanding civility better)

advocatefortruth said...

Josh, you are right. The interesting part of this whole Jack Bauer debate is the fact that obviously the reason behind this groups (Jack Bauer is not one person)cowardness to reveal their true names. And I asked myself why and the only reason is because they are afraid it would hurt them professionally. For instance if I was a legal assistant at a family owned law firm, would I want to reveal myself and know it could very well affect my employment? Or if I worked at a small business, how could I defend my actions when I called business supervisors asking if they knew their employees were sending non work e-mails from their work computer?

Cato said...

Well at least you use Firefox.

While I would not run a blog in such a way, I think the authors of OTBL want to control their message, much like how The New Richmond News controls it's message. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but, like I said, I wouldn't run something in that manner.

advocatefortruth said...

CATO,
Please explain an example or two of how the New Richmond News controls its message.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I'm curious, if you were running this blog would people of my ilk still be posting?

Cato said...

The New Richmond News decides what Letters tothe Editor to run. Their decidedly anti-"non-traditional" sources of news is as blatent as their support for immense tax increases. I suppose an example would be their letter in which they put out rewards so that the bloggers of OBTL could be named. They are afraid of other people changing the tune of the news. They are the town newspaper, they decide what is and isn't news.

Cato said...

Of course andy, so long as you don't make racist attacks, spam, troll, etc., I would welcome any other opinion for the same reason attractive women hang around unattractive women.

Oh kidding of course...

AndyRand said...

Cato:
You'd stoop to using a blog to pick up guys? :-)

Cato said...

That's why I frequent this blog and not www.ontheborderline.net. Odds are better here...


You know what I meant. It makes me look good.

Luke said...

Yes Cato, you certainly help emphasize the "odd" in odds on this blog. At OTBL the "odds" are overshadowed by the bizzare.

Anonymous said...

Odds are better here? What's that supposed to mean?

AndyRand said...

Lookin' Good CATO,

Remember, What happens on ATBL,
Stays on ATBL.........

You've got competition at OTBL?
Who'd that be DR.Billdonttreadonmeslimpickins?

666 said...

Cato:

Do you know for a fact the NR News withholds letters to the editor? Unless you have a specific example or know of such examples, you are just speculating.

If there is a letter content issue that could get the paper in legal libel trouble, I have my doubts that Mr. Holmquist is keeping letters out because of some agenda.

If you think he has an agenda, maybe you can share your conspiratorial insights with us.

Cato said...

I think his views are very clear. There is a distinct viewpoint the paper wants out there. If the majority of the letters tothe editor are FOR something, yet the majoirty of the people are AGAINST it, I think there may be something a bit fishy. I have no idea though, you are correct. I am just making an educated guess that it does not use every letter to the editor. But their view is cleary plastered all over the paper. Any news organization that would put a bounty on someone's head the way they did is far worse than any tabloid. I think you agree with me on that 666, you did say you did not like their viewpoint. It was rather astonishing actually. I couldn't believe that a news organization would print such a thing... but they did. Anonymity allows for many things, including free speech, and was practiced by those who founded this nation in an attempt, among other things, to justify the need for the Constitution. That a news organization would call for their head in such a manner is frankly shocking and extremely telling of their position.

My point here of course was that the New RichmondNews controls its message. While I am critical of them in regards to certian things, I do not mind them controlling their message as everything should be taken with varying amounts of salt. Like The New Richmond News, www.ontheborderline.net also controls their message. There is nothing wrong with that, although I would not practice the same thing.

Josh said...

Cato would you work for the New Richmond News?

Assuming you were a reporter..?

Cato said...

If the pay was right, yes (which it isn't, I'm sure). But I would rather be an opinion columnist than a reporter.

Josh said...

yeah, I have no idea where I was going with that..