Annonymous Posting/Split from 24-Story tower for Summit Avenue

[SackResident]

I can definitely agree that some things are not what they appear.  The Bergen Record is showing us that on a daily basis.  I think it's pretty ironic that you are accusing the challengers of "exploiting" this.  Every time someone writes a fact on here, you try and spin it in the current council's favor.  Only $500.00 was reported as of yet.  The incumbants still have time to release the rest of their "donations". 

Also, why is it that certain people involved with Citizens for Change were denied access to this "unbiased" forum? 

[Editor]

No spin.  I'm just setting the record straight.

Which people involved with Citizens were denied access?  Someone with an email address containing the full name of one of their candidates was approved just hours after they registered. (And long before you posted this reply). This person has yet to post, but the screenname is "eyeonhack". Also,- unless the registering email address clearly identifies the registrant, how am I supposed to tell who they are?  In the case of "eyeonhack", that person was approved regardless of the obvious affliation. 

The only time I may deny access is when someone tries to register more than one screenname to the same IP address.  This creates the impression that multiple people are voicing similar opinions. This is common on the NJ.com forums.

Finally, you don't have to look too hard on these boards to find posts critical of this administration or the prior administration.

You're accusing this site of bias? Now that's ironic.

[eyeonhack]

mA6Pc5  ssdaxuiwjxba, chziashtiggv, [link=http://lxkssnuamymb.com/]lxkssnuamymb[/link], http://rkeilzirfybn.com/

[Editor]

[Note: I split a few posts from the original thread because we were getting off topic.]

For the record: I never revealed your identity or even your gender.  I only revealed that you were an approved registrant of a slate that I was accused of shutting out.  I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for an apology.

Is anyone else seeing a pattern here?

[regina]

An apology? I think you owe this person an apology. You narrowed their identity down to one out of five possibilities. Anonymity mean anything to you? Why would you feel you needed to share that info? I hope you're not doing this on City time.

[Editor]

I'm off today. Feel free to check. 

Why is a candidate for public office so concerned with annonymity?  If you are using these boards to actively campaign why don't you do so openly?

Based on prior posts, I can only assume that you want to avoid accountability for the accusations you make.

[regina]

First, you said this person did not post - so they are not campaigning on this board.

Second, as for my accountability - what is in question? Do I owe you something? I'm just a citizen of Hackesack - not a candidate or city employee.

Third, what "accusations" have I made?

[SackResident]

Peanut,
 
He doesn't have an answer.  He believes that anybody that says anything different from the current council is wrong.  It is disturbing that he would go out of his way to reveal the identity of a poster (who hadn't even posted yet). 

And for the record.  Maybe Eyeonhack would have posted their identity.  That is up to them to decide, not you Mr. Dib.  Another poor decision by someone who supports this current councils poor decisions.

[Editor]

Also, why is it that certain people involved with Citizens for Change were denied access to this "unbiased" forum? 

You announced that Citizens were seeking access, not me. Furthermore, this person's identity was never revealed and the screenname was noted only to refute your erroneous allegation. Nothing is stopping this person from just grabbing another screenname. Problem solved.

In answer to Peanut (a/k/a Regina), this candidate was obviously registering in order to post messages.  You don't need to register to review posts. What's in question is why people so closely associated with the Citizen's ticket now have this compelling need to post anonymous messages about the incumbents and their supporters. None of you ever wanted anything to do with this site until the election season started. 

And Sack, the only reason you know my name is because i told you. I believe enough in what I write to associate my name with it. 

To avoid another accusation of bias, I just approved an additional screenname with your IP address.

[regina]

I have been registered for 2 years. While I don't always post, I do read this board once in awhile

[regina]

And I decided to change my screen name to my real name - in the interest of open and honest posting. I have nothing to hide and no agenda other than to have discussions in an honest manner.

[DLabrosse]

Mr. Dib,

Thank you for activating my screen name. I will continue to post for my husband until you activate his screen name. I am a little confused as to your thought process. Three adults live in my house. How did you come to the incorrect assumption that my husband applied for multiple screen names? The truth is, he has not. In addition to the three adults living in my house, multiple friends and family also frequent our house. Some of these people have screen names for this website and have posted from our address. Mr. Dib, before you make accusations please make sure your information is correct.

[Editor]

You're welcome.  Mr. Labrosse's screenname is now approved for posting. 

I made no accusations.  I simply stated a fact.  I typically don't allow multiple screennames on the same IP because of the potential for abuse.  Based on the circumstances you described, I'm making an exception.  And at the risk of being redundant, I don't know who is associated with your IP address so this is not personal.

I hope you don't mind that I moved your latest reply from the 2009 Election thread to this one. 

[just watching]

I think it was inappropriate for the editor to announce that "eyeonhack" is one of candidates running for office.  Now everyone will have a tainted view of this person's postings.  The answer to this dilemna is for the editor to email "eyeonhack" and state that the name has been deleted from the system, and this IP address now has the right to log in with a new user name.