Once Again: Banned from Ludington Talks

[XLFD]

My latest semi-anonymous incarnation on Talks, Ash Wholesome, was given a Christmas vacation today around 6 PM by Shoreline Media. Frankly, I think I was living on borrowed time since I posted a thread on 6th ward LCC Gary Castonia's e-mail calling all Talks members 'cowards'.

After a dozen or more brave people expressed their irritation at the councilor and for John Shay in a variety of posts (including several torch-holders here now), Shoreline Media posted a silly comment that said, in effect, that since there was only about 10 out of 2000 members actually upset with the City Council in the forum, there was no significant portion of people that had a problem with our city leaders. Using that reasoning, it could probably be rationalized that there is public support behind the wind farms because less than 50 out of 2000 members wrote posts against it.

In my reply, I politely explained statistical sampling, and pointed out that those who expressed negative feelings about Shay greatly outnumbered even those who were neutral, among those that posted. And pointed out that not one of the dozen posters in that thread had pointed out anything positive about him. Not one.

I even used the bold type, in true Edie Lindsey fashion. I went back later and found me banned. Is this not true cowardice? What is your opinion on SM's tactics or direction?

[AQUAMAN]

Just the status-quo, sameo, sameo. The owner/publisher, David Jackson, is friends with both Henderson and Anderson, so I heard, so they are only going to let these type threads go so far, then ban I suppose. Actually, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. But the banning didn't have to happen, they could have dropped the thread and gave you a probationary warning etc. imo. The excuses given you were flimsy at best. Most of the members don't post comments at all, all year, every year, on anything.

[Haiku Confucius]

I have been warn'd twice
News/Talks friends of City Hall
Not hard to believe.

[AQUAMAN]

It's almost human nature: given the fact David Jackson has a monopoly on publishing a local-yocal daily newspaper, he also finds himself, in a quandry so to speak. He must remain loyal to that faction of hyerarchy that represents the city: that of the CC, LPD, Courthouse, and their respective electors/appointees. He has to draw an invisible line of scrutiny where freedom of the press starts and ends. No doubt, some at city hall and elsewhere put enormous pressure on his person from time to time, if they feel the need to. If he were true to the freedoms of the press only, then where would the public voice fall, on right and freedoms, or as we have seen repeatedly, with silence and apathy? Can he take that chance with all he has to lose? Maybe, if given the right incentives and evidence, on special occassion, otherwise, he must bow to those powers that control the entire landscape. JMO

[AQUAMAN]

Can you post these warnings old wise one? Pretty interesting if true and postable I would think! AQ

[Dave]

How long until your banned here? lol

[XLFD]

ROFL, we appreciate smart alecks here.

[Dave]

I'll fit right in then :-D

[Aaron Shepherdsor]

It seems like Shoreline Media’s approach really underestimates the impact of active voices, and reading your experience makes it clear that forums like this can easily silence dissent, xxbrits often notice how small but vocal groups can challenge such narratives.