Online integrity

It's getting a little testy on our online forum because the moderators are finally starting to enforce some rules and the usual suspects are squawking. Some are asking for a free in -for -all format and others are whining about equality. Still another poster day goes by the name of justamom would benefit by reading the constitution.... The Victoria Advocate online forum is not censoring anyone, nor can they infringe on anyone's first amendment rights of free speech. It's not rocket science; the Advocate staff is just reemphasizing the rules for posting. The implicated individuals are in denial; they know exactly what they're doing, but they want to do more of it and want others to agree with them. The waywardwind continues to make a plea for the return of Kenneth Schustereit, but he doesn't have the foggiest idea, what transpired to get Kenneth banned. Was it multiple warnings or a disagreement that couldn't be reconciled?

I have mixed feelings concerning Lamppost's latest blog. On one hand, it would certainly get my ire to get emails like the ones he has posted. I have never have received an unflattering e-mail but a lot of my online friends have. I know two females that got threatening e-mails because they took a liberal side. Those emails worked because they left the forum but the individual that wrote those emails is still posting today. That's the reason I have mixed feelings. About three years ago, I threatened to expose the blogger who wrote those threatening emails by submitting the evidence online. For some reason, he took a long leave of absence, so I forgot about it. There is a cabal that not only wants their opinion to be seen and heard, but like online evangelists, they want to convert everyone to their line of thinking. I would like to think that I would never divulge an e-mail that was sent to me in confidence but according to Lamppost, he didn't solicit nor was he expecting an email from Dale Zuck. If that is the case; he is under no obligation to keep an e-mail secret; especially if it's an ongoing feud. I know for a fact that the Ron Paulites (don't tax me bro) types are anti- taxes zealots who will demagogue anyone and anything, if they think it will raise their property taxes by $1.25. People like that can't wait to get into office, so they cut anything that might raise their property taxes. They are driven by ideology and their wallets. Don't take my word for it, compile a list of their comments, and I bet at least 90% of their posts have to do with taxes.

Am I being hypocritical for complaining about personal information being revealed online? I complained about a login script that was doctored without the express permission from the Victoria Advocate. Lamppost's blog did divulge the contents of two e-mails but evidently it was within the rules because he had done that before. Perhaps we're taking a kinder and gentler approach now, where questionable blogs and comments will be deleted...I guess it's about keeping a free flowing respectful environment.

I've had a couple of blogs that were directed at me, but I considered the source, so I never retaliated. I used to write a contradicting blog because I didn't want unsubstantiated material to stand for a fact. I also remember the "mosque at ground zero" blog I wrote last year where another blog with the exact opposite view was placed above mine. Then there what I call the "AM radio blogs."..It’s a place where those interested in participating, can have their ideological food fights until heart content.Then again, some die the lonely death of dismissal.

Am I being a hypocrite again?Is there verifiable proof that the Advocate treats one group or an individual better or worse than others?I haven't seen it.... Is there another way at looking at the whole situation? Of course there is, so why don’t you tell where I’m wrong.