Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
It rings hollow when you say you removed posts in this thread because someone complained. I respectfully submit that you use that as the excuse, not the reason for removing the posts.
Well, I see some of my post's have been deleted that were up all day. I guess that itchy trigger finger was looking to hit the delete button again or you passed an ex post facto rule that brought it down. Anyway, I guess I should count myself lucky any of my posts meet the stringent standards of the moving target policy in regards to posting online.
The use of inflammatory terms seems common place. When placing a topic for consideration the comments stemmed more to me as a person rather then wholes in my position statement. I think that the VA should insist on civility. Concrete thinking also an issue. When my attempts at satire or heck sarcasms were taken at face value I have to admit I deferred to Matthew 7:6.
I appreciate the blogs and comments on the Advocate--they serve many positive purposes. I don't think I have read a blog on-line (I don't watch television, I read blogs) where the comments did NOT go off topic--I think that is the natural evolution of a conversation.
And, isn't that what "news" does? It influences people to talk--to have conversations and to communicate. These exchanges lead people into forming relationships--and while some may result in dislike, many result positively in empathy, friendship, and community.
I do not think that it is logical to delete comments that seem "off-topic". If I had to defend my comment, I think I could easily show how it related to the topic at hand. Without going into specifics, I would show how expounding upon a point, or on an enlightening moment, is completely germain to the original comment and discussion. Also, asking questions about an issue is never wrong. (I won't go into my other lecture on the disservice that occurs when people, who have questions, are shut-down--or deleted, in this case).
I think that the bottom line for me is that if one of my comments is deleted, I want to be the one who chose to delete it.
I too had problems with letters. When Dan was here there was not much problem. He knew I was just not throughing things out there. People said they like my letters. Even the history ones.
When he left the new head dog wanted every sentence document and proved, etc, etc, if it had a right leaning. I said that there seemed to be no problem with all the left "opinions", which there were many of. I just gave up, no use when the one guy holds the ball.
I get many who want me to start back, maybe one of these days.
Matt you should know that the VA does not want to get on the city's "bad" side...Just think if that were to happen...
Let me try to get help us get back on topic here, which is how to make the online Advocate experience better. I had a teacher who used to use that candy and nuts quote as well, and he also liked to say to us "if you can't run with the big dogs, to stay on the porch." It is amazing how similar things are there in Kansas to things down here in South Texas.
But back to how to make the online Advocate better, as I have said previously, maybe giving that delete button a rest would help a tad. I know it's good to be king, but seriously, that delete button can at times be equivalent to turning off someone's microphone who is making points and getting the crowd excited.
My teacher taught us to "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton." I suppose the modern day equivalent would be don't argue online with someone who controls the delete button.
I still want to know who is telling the truth about property valuations and I want to know who to go see about finding that out?
I was not aware of the video until today. It seemed to me that the City Manager was carefully choosing his words in addressing his property valuation. It almost looked like someone who might be giving a deposition. I merely ask, if what Matt Ocker alleges is correct, and if the City Manager was responding to that allegation and subsequently mislead or otherwise tried to obfuscate by his answer, is that not fair game?
In regards to how you can make the online Advocate better, I humbly submit that many very good leads for good general interest news stories are laid on the table in these forums. Of course you have to separate the wheat from the chafe, but seriously, you come across like you are afraid when someone really rocks the boat in here. Libel and slander aside, some compelling statements have been made that should be easily verified as to their veracity.
This comment was removed by the user.
Matt be careful, remember that these folks are dug in like ticks on a dog. Old and unable to change. Rather it be pride or arrogance. Just my opinion...
there wasn't a reason in the story a year later about why he wasn't charged, some one getting killed in an accident by someone falling to sleep and nothing being done is kind of a funny situation. what did dps discover with the 3d study niothing was said about that, i was told my one of your editors that the officer wouldn't call her bacvk. sorry excuse as far as i'm concered. thanks
Chris, I'm perplexed at why Matt Ockers comment was deleted from this blog. I’m glad that I did have the opportunity to read it, and watch the video link he provided. I feel as though his message was needed to retort the prior comment that you made in reference to the matter. The comment you posted clearly deserved a retort from Mr. Ocker. Isn’t this what the Victoria Ad Blog is all about? Why would any one want to put a effort into a wealthy debate only to have it stricken down. Do any of us have the constitutional right to our freedom of speech, or is that unheard of with the Victoria Advocate. Here is your earlier comment;"We focused our discussion on the credibility of online journalism and received many good questions and suggestions to consider as we move forward. The next steps are to decide how we might improve our Web site.."I agree with your statement. However it seems as though you don't feel the same way. Where is the credibility in your (Victoria advocate) censorship, when there was nothing in Mr. Ocker's post that was out of favorable decorum? As a Victoria citizen and tax payer, I feel it is important for such information, like that which he has provided, to be brought to the table for all readers. He has a wealth of knowledge to share with all of us. I have not seen anywhere where his has bestowed community information that hasn’t been backed by straight forward facts. Are there people out there that are afraid of what he will educate the people on? The best way a slave owner could keep his slaves a bay and under his control was to never allow them to have any form of education or information which might liberate them. Is This what we, the majority of tax paying, Victoria advocate reading citizens seeing happening here on this blog? I hope not.
yes mr, cobbler is that why there was no followup on little annies wreck, that killed her until a year later. no follow up on th 3d video that dps did after closing the loop. and the best question unanswered or even asked. "why wasn't there a ticket issued to the driver of the other car?" that struck little annies' car. WHY?
mr. cobler, there was a young man injured seriously in a motorcycle accident about 3 months ago around nursery, on a country road by the name of jermeny definbaugh(sp) he was lifeflighted to corpus, there has never been a followup story on his condition. i saw where they held a benefit for him at the harley shop in victoria. whats the reason for no follow up stories, on certain things.
Chris. You mentioned banned users. Approximately, how many users have been banned from commenting on the on-line VA website? Thanks.