Hackensack, NJ Community Message Boards
General Category => Hackensack Discussion => Topic started by: Editor on March 10, 2013, 11:34:35 PM
-
I split this from "24-story tower for Summit Avenue (http://www.hackensacknow.org/index.php/topic,987.msg8159.html)" topic because it doesn't belong there. It is better as a "stand alone" topic and worth having a conversation about. (Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition because I'm crazy like that.)
Justwatching posted:
The problem is the land cost. Even though they paid real high for those houses on Summit Ave, their total real estate investment would be higher at The Record campus. Especially considering who owns it now, and how greedy he is for money. Also, Pineles wants the prestige of being on Summit and Prospect Ave.
to which, I replied:
Justwatching: why do you continually go out of your way to attack people? When you say the owner is "greedy", you may be asserting an opinion, but it's not clear. You keep putting yourself in these potentially litigious situations and I'm tired of trying to save you from yourself.
Two warnings: 1: The next time you attack someone (anyone) on this site, all of your future posts will be screened prior to them appearing. 2: I will fully comply with any lawful request for an IP address to identify posters of potentially defamatory statements. You could find yourself spending thousands of dollars to defend yourself (even if you win). It happens all the time. You should know better.
-
These days anyone can sue anyone for anything. They would have to prove in the court of law that they are not "xyz" and how someone's internet post damaged them, but theoretically they could do it.
This is most often done in the form of a SLAPP lawsuit. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.)
This is one of the reasons I feel the way I do about lawyers. You didn't like that post either.
-
I think Just Watching is on solid ground. [Personal attack deleted by Editor].
Victor E. Sasson
Eye on The Record
-
Whether or not justwatching or vsasson are on "solid ground" is besides the point. This is not the place.
-
Mr. Sasson:
I just deleted a personal attack you made in this topic and "15 Main St.". If you levy one more personal attack, all of your future entries will be screened prior to posting. Again, this is not the place to further your crusade. A number of members have already complained.
-
I, for one, appreciate the effort to keep these boards civil. It is a difficult task, for sure. Discussion and information, and maybe a little entertainment once in a while, are the main purposes of this site. Offensive, intimidating, and generally rude posts directed at individuals who express their opinion, or at entities in no way involved in the discussion, should not be permitted. If individuals cannot abide by the rules of posting, then their posts should not be permitted. Anyone why cries "censorship" can go post on their own site.
-
Oh boy, I'd like to review every REGINA post and see if it meets those high and lofty criteria.
-
Have I attacked your personally, justwatching? Have I offended you with my opinion? I am not a public figure open to such discussion. But I must matter to you in some way for you to post that. Doesn't Newark have some "cause" you could join?
-
On March 9th, Regina posted in the election thread that Lynne Hurwitz has the nickname of the "Dragon Lady". Never heard that one, to be honest. Isn't that a personal attack ??? I could look deeper, for other posts by Regina that could be classified as personal attacks.
I agree with the Editor that personal attacks are improper, and I don't want to be known for them. I will be on good behavior going forwards.
-
If you read Kelly's column and the online comments, which i believe were part of that thread, you would have seen the comment referring to her as "Dragon Lady". I asked how she earned the nickname.
You can see it here
http://www.northjersey.com/columnists/kelly/Kelly_A_reformers_conversion_to_hardball_politics.html?page=all&scpromo=1
If you have to "look deeper" for personal attacks from me, then they must be few and far between.
-
I think the censorship being exercised by the editor is unnecessary and unwarranted. But this sentiment might be deleted on the grounds that it is "a personal attack." What exactly have people complained about?
-
This might help.
My tolerance for negativity and attacks decreases the further you go down the list of targets:
1. Public Elected Officials: They know what they bargained for and it comes with the territory.
2. Quasi Public Officials: Not elected necessarily, but politically aligned, often candidates.
3. Public figures: people who are not necessarily political but purposely in the public eye, often outspoken on one issue or another and ready to defend themselves.
4. Politically/Socially outspoken people in general. These people intentionally inject themselves into the public realm for one reason or another.
I have little tolerance for known posters who attack people who don't even know they are being attacked. I have absolutely no tolerance for anonymous posters who attack people who don't know they are being attacked and find it completely despicable. I have no tolerance for any attacks made on people that don’t fit into one of the 4 categories above.
As far as “censorship” goes, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t guarantee anyone’s 1st amendment rights in this forum. There are many ways to speak your mind but if you need to attack someone, you’ll need to do it someplace else. Personal attacks are the only comments I’ve ever deleted and I’ve done so very sparingly.
-
I am very surprised by this list.
Are you sure there isn't a number 5. criteria, which would be any attack on the former Chief of Police.
-
What are you talking about? You made a comment on 2/23/13 that defamed an individual in the same sentence in which you mentioned the former chief. You claimed this person was motivated by "vengeance". I deleted the sentence as a personal attack. I saved a copy. If you still feel that your comment was perfectly in bounds, tell me that it is OK to release your identity to the individual you potentially defamed and let him/her know what you said. Deal?
Do a search. You've attacked the former chief and members of his family plenty of times on this site, always safely behind the veil of complete anonymity. Very courageous.
-
The Editor has spoken
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=barney+fife&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=wK4rgZuhh072wM&tbnid=kj5_7GhcjAUIiM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabadgedisgraced.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fdallas-deputy-sheriff-james-westbrook.html&ei=FCtFUZfbMs-70AHOg4DADA&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNGrUH2vbmj43qEcKftmqsRHF4ZY-w&ust=1363573900974249
-
I think the censorship being exercised by the editor is unnecessary and unwarranted. But this sentiment might be deleted on the grounds that it is "a personal attack." What exactly have people complained about?
I think it's ironic Mr. Sasson is complaining about censorship. He has been editing and deleting comments submitted to his blog for years. He just eliminated anonymous commenters, too. Soon, that blog will be Mr. Sasson talking to himself, just like his thread on this board.