|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 12, 2009 7:34:42 GMT -5
This is a decussion board. Opinions, facts and fiction. When does an administrator decide that it is enough of a discussion that he can move it where you must be registered to read? Is that a bias decision on one person? And why would that decision be made to move it? Is it that the facts are not to be told or a threat? And, who is being patronized? When the administrator started a thread with negativity about the case, that was fine. Even a newspaper article was printed as facts, which is not legal documents and we know how news stories go. So, who wants to judge this move by the administrator!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 12, 2009 8:01:43 GMT -5
This is a decussion board. Opinions, facts and fiction. When does an administrator decide that it is enough of a discussion that he can move it where you must be registered to read? The administrator didn't move it, I did. Is that a bias decision on one person? No, it was discussed and a decision made to take the discussion off of the main board. And why would that decision be made to move it? Is it that the facts are not to be told or a threat? Not sure what you are meaning here jhjmr. This is where all the threads can be gathered in one location. Of course we all want the facts to be known in this case. And, who is being patronized? When the administrator started a thread with negativity about the case, that was fine.If you are referring to the original posting made by me, I did that to get a thread started that would stay on track about the case as it unfolded. The newspaper article had already been posted to another thread by a different poster. I had discussed the case as it was happening, and told others that when it was finally reported I would do my best to make sure that information was confined to 'reportable facts' as near as possible here on the TMB. Obviously the whole case took off in several directions. At no time was there an attempt on my part to simply post "negativity about the case" In fact, in order to try and keep things as 'true to the facts as possible' I went back and altered the original posting as 'facts' became known by lining out those items which were posted originally, and clarifying the 'facts' as they became known. Even a newspaper article was printed as facts, which is not legal documents and we know how news stories go. What other facts were available at that time, and for that matter, what other 'facts' are available now? Unless there are court documents posted here, anything stated is simply one persons word against another's. Newspaper articles are routinely posted to the board as they are 'news' whether they are totally factual or not. I would imagine that if the article I originally posted is in fact deliberate lies, then there is legal recourse against both the newspaper and the TV station for posting those lies. It wasn't my words posted but theirs. So, who wants to judge this move by the administrator!Again, I was the one that moved the threads, so no need to judge the administrator. The only difference with reading on this forum as opposed to the main board is that the members of the TMB will need to sign in to do so. Why is that an issue? Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 12, 2009 15:11:45 GMT -5
Do you suppose when you sign in that the administrator knows who is reading something, versus if they just turn on the thread and read it, the administrator doesn't know who that could be. There are many more readers than there are commentators. If no one was interested in the facts, there would be record of anyone reading the thread. But, since there are a lot of people reading the thread, things have been made known that to some are very important. That is an issue. All who come to this board some for one reason. To learn about certain things and to comment about certain things. And it would be wonderful if you could register as required, without the administrators being concerned to who it is. Who the person is should not make a difference in writing on this board. No prejudice should be present. The administrator should not be on any side in any debate because it is not a level playing field. He knows who it is and he can show prejudice or his opinion can reflect on what is allowed or where it is allowed. Just playing politics!
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 12, 2009 21:23:13 GMT -5
Since bandtroll is negative, does that carry the weight of those who actually have a stake in this investigation? Who is someone so important that they can determine what they think should be told and how it effects those that are part of this mess? Sorry if facts are to much for anyone to handle! ?? This is all I had posted, I did not suggest where to move them. Is it time to move all the MI related threads to their own section? (Except maybe the 'current one') And keep them there until sometime after the 'last' trial? I suggested it based on this Keeping this one on page one also..................... And this This was on page 40. Hope this will help to keep one digging to help you find your answers? I have also noticed major changes throughout these threads via wings associates and others. People were bumping the threads just to keep them on the top. Might as well have them locked to the top.
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Jun 13, 2009 7:30:06 GMT -5
This is a decussion board. Opinions, facts and fiction. When does an administrator decide that it is enough of a discussion that he can move it where you must be registered to read? Is that a bias decision on one person? And why would that decision be made to move it? Is it that the facts are not to be told or a threat? And, who is being patronized? When the administrator started a thread with negativity about the case, that was fine. Even a newspaper article was printed as facts, which is not legal documents and we know how news stories go. So, who wants to judge this move by the administrator! Just watch who you vilify, jhjmr. Mods and the administrator have rights too, and TMB has a standard which we will uphold. That includes no slander.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 22, 2009 12:21:05 GMT -5
That includes no slander. Are you certain you mean slander?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jun 22, 2009 12:53:34 GMT -5
That includes no slander. Are you certain you mean slander? slander = "speech" or transitory means of expression libel = written and published means of expression What do you call something that gets posted on a message board? What if the post is deleted by the original poster? What if the post is deleted by a moderator? Defamation is wrong, whether in the form of slander or libel.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 22, 2009 14:14:41 GMT -5
slander = "speech" or transitory means of expression libel = written and published means of expression Exactly. libel that would be difficult to prove unless the original post had been quoted. Same as above but even more difficult to prove unless you have access to the log files. I think calumny is a better word. It's still wrong!
|
|