Comments on: City shouldn’t open itself up to lawsuit

By: Classof52

Classof52 — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:27:36 +0000

AP: “I hope eventually you will join with us, not only by accepting and practicing the “code of conduct”, which you already have, but by putting your name along side ours and becoming a full member. We really could use your input in solving some of these issues.”

Agreeing to some sort of unspecified code carries with it the implication that I wish to change my on line behavior from what it was previously. I do not. I have always tried to maintain a level of civil discourse without resorting to personal attacks (except in a handful of instances when highly provoked). I do not use demeaning names and I do not use insulting terms for another person. I will continue this policy.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:44:44 +0000

AP,

Getting back to the letter, you said you supported the continuation of the invocation. I’d like to ask you if you think it is worth the added costs that will be incurred? The Council will have to establish guidelines for the invocations and monitor them to ensure they comply. This will be a permanent cost. In addition, the city will remain at risk for litigation if the invocations do not comply with the established guidelines, or if they fail to monitor what is being said. They are already NOT having invocations at half their meetings (only on Mondays). Do you feel that it is worth the cost and risk?

By contrast, changing it to a moment of silence incurs no costs, no ongoing monitoring, no guidelines and no risk of litigation. Plus, the first item on the agenda of each meeting is an opportunity for public comments. Any citizen can take up to three minutes at the microphone to say whatever he wants. If someone feels so moved, he or she can step up and pray at that time. This incurs no liability for the city either.

It just seems to me that the moment of silence is the best solution. What do you think?

By: american_patriot

american_patriot — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:06:44 +0000

Class of 52,
What shall we do then? Submit a list of our friends and acquaintances? What I think we should do is allow the person who was offended to make the objection. I made the objection to Mr. Laitres because in my opinion the word mob in his statement referred to those who objected to the invocation being altered or removed. Since I was one of those, I felt that qualified me to make the objection. If you were an attorney, then I could see how you could be offended. Mr. Hugenberg is an attorney and is quite capable of speaking for himself. You have every right to defend him, but you do not have the right to be offended in his place. And I think that is the difference.
Also, what you might consider, is that individuals who write a letter to the editor rarely if ever show up on this site to defend their statements. So they more or less have a free shot. If they posted in defense of their statement, or they posted an objection, and were willing to sign on or at least adhere to the same rules that we have agreed to, then I think they should be treated the same. It is arguable that Mr. Hugenberg placed himself in the place of being a public figure by posting several letters on this issue, using his own name as is required, while many of us on this site have made a personal choice to use handles because we did not want to put our real names in a public forum, or become a public figure. I think we all except that a signed statement should be given more weight than an anonymous post, and that is the advantage enjoyed by Mr. Hugenberg. Ideally, we would all use the same courtesy, regardless of who we were talking to, but I think it is unrealistic, especially in an election year, to apply that same standard to local candidates and individuals who have placed themselves and their name publicly in support of an issue that is widely perceived to be political. I do not presume to speak for others, but my perception of the purpose of our “code of conduct” was to preserve civility among those who have signed on and accepted the code of conduct. My understanding is that letters to the editor have a separate code and are reviewed and selected by staff at the Daily Sentinel, and in that way are a separate entity. I realize that we are going to have to make adjustments as we go, and I am doing my best to find a common ground that will allow spirited discussion without personal offense, and I hope you will join me in finding solutions to problems as they arise, as I am sure that a number of them will. I am just not anxious to do harm to our agreement in the name of things that haven’t happened. I hope eventually you will join with us, not only by accepting and practicing the “code of conduct”, which you already have, but by putting your name along side ours and becoming a full member. We really could use your input in solving some of these issues.

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:02:32 +0000

My apologies to the forum users.

It appears that indeed, JohnB did sign on to the agreement to be civil.

Post #350.

” John B.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm PM This User Report this comment

The success you seek will be obvious soon enough–civil discourse. We don’t need some kind of group pledge for that. That should go without saying. We know where it went off track previously and we know why it persisted. I’m definitely “in” in terms of desiring civil discourse but we’ll have to wait and see just how touchy people are. Its easy for one’s ideas to be offensive to somebody but does that qualify as insults, for instance? I’ve watched many threads and frankly people were qiick to read things into language that was pretty straightforward and not meant at all to be a zinger. Nevertheless, let’s get on with it. ”

While he seems to be reluctant in his agreeing to the concept, he did agree.

And his last couple of sentences were quite remarkable under the current situation.

” Its easy for one’s ideas to be offensive to somebody but does that qualify as insults, for instance? I’ve watched many threads and frankly people were qiick to read things into language that was pretty straightforward and not meant at all to be a zinger. Nevertheless, let’s get on with it. ”

In essence, when he signed on, he indicated that he would be looking for any excuse to fly off the handle.

Obviously, the gentleman’s desire for a civil forum in which to engage others was patently false from the beginning.

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:52:26 +0000

” John B.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm PM This User Report this comment
———–
A-P, it appears that both you and WLJ have the honor of breaking the pledge first. Who woulda’ thunk?
———–
The mob refers to people in general who blindly take a position without listening and discerning who said what and who did what. Offensive to you? Was that an insult to you? Was it directed at you? How do you know who Mr.Laitres had in mind?
————-
As for WLJ, Mr. Hugenberg is a friend and is anything but the proverbial ambulance chaser.
————-
As far as I know he has not charged a soul for his advice. And his advice is very thoroughly researched. WLJ is characterizing people because he disagrees with them. In WLJ’s book apparently ones ideas makes them despicable if he disagrees with them. ”

No JohnB, neither of us was the first to ‘break the pledge’ that you never took.

Nor did either of us attack, belittle, demean, or abuse any other poster on this site.

However, it was nice to note that you were the first to file a complaint over a non issue.

I offered to play nicely with the other children, and I intend to do so.

As for yourself?

The other posters are waiting patiently to see if you are going to act in a civil manner.

By: Classof52

Classof52 — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:52:20 +0000

I think we must be aware that applying a term in a non specific way to a general group (e.g. “those crooked politicians”) has a very different flavor than applying an epithet to a specific person who is not a national figure, especially one who is local and a personal friend of several of the contributors here. Even the libel laws recognize the difference.

By: american_patriot

american_patriot — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:34:50 +0000

RL,
Thank you. I will try to be more judicious in the future and not quite so touchy. And I do think that is part of the problem. We are discussing an emotional issue, at least on my side. Thank you again. Your reply was very considerate.

By: RLaitres

RLaitres — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:19:01 +0000

AP states: “I see you did not notice that I had already withdrawn my complaint. But your answer was noted. I realize that it is more difficult to make the effort to choose other wording. But I think it is an effort well worth making. And I hope you will consider it.”

The difficulty is that we all have differing backgrounds and, and in differing fields. What means something to one person (and they might find it offensive) others may find it part of the normal discourse when dealing with the subject at hand. Even I, after reading a response, may go back to see how my post COULD have been misinterpreted and, if required, clarification will follow.

By: american_patriot

american_patriot — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:08:48 +0000

RL,
I see you did not notice that I had already withdrawn my complaint. But your answer was noted. I realize that it is more difficult to make the effort to choose other wording. But I think it is an effort well worth making. And I hope you will consider it.

By: RLaitres

RLaitres — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:03:45 +0000

AP states: “Sir, I respectfully disagree. And I believe your use of the word was to demean.”

Unfortunately, I cannot help what AP ‘believes’ was meant by the term “mob”, nor am I responsible for him classifying himself as a member of such a group. As to divining anothers’ motivation, I am not that far along in level of cognizance.

If one looks for, and is determined to find ‘offense’ in what others say, one will undoubtedly find it.