Speak Out Loud NA

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Allowed and Not Allowed on This Blog

This Blog is here for folks to discuss City issues and ask questions or make comments regarding the state of affairs within New Albany's political administration, decision making processes, and the future of our town. What this blog is NOT for, is to host a log of personal opinions about anybody's personal life, job, or actions unrelated to City business (thus the anonymity).
For anyone who wishes to do otherwise, I strongly suggest you find another place to do it, as it will all be deleted from this site. It is inapproporiate and unwelcomed.
Mr. Baylor, as for posting privileges, I am not at all convinced that you will follow the guidelines I have set forth for this blog, in-so-far-as you have been uncooperative even with the admonishments I have previously made. Therefore, I will not be extending posting abilities to you until you can show that you are able to participate in these discussions without being rude, or outright out of line. Furthermore, we will not discuss this decision on this blog. Again, it is outside the rhelm of topics for this format.
Now, as for City topics, the Thursday nights "workshop" for council members should be very informative in regards to the YMCA Scribner Place project. I expect the bond issue will be discussed. Perhaps we will all have the benefit of more knowledge regarding this issue after that meeting.
Also, as a matter of thanks to all others who participate in this blog, I would like to say that I support anyone who raises reasonable questions and asks for answers. On this blog, or in a public forum where we are (slightly) allowed to ask questions of our elected representatives. The majority of people just want to know what is happening to their money.

28 Comments:

  • Laura,

    Does that mean you'll be reviewing already posted comments and deleting at your discretion or are you just going to start enforcing policy now?

    By Blogger bluegill, at 6:48 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • Bluegill...
    This has always been the policy, I have been enforcing it, and will continue to do so.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 6:54 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • What if I post anonymously?

    Then you won't know who to muzzle.

    Free, uh, speech?

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 6:55 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • I'm not sure why do you allow certain people to attack other certain people, but not vice versa?

    There doesn't seem to be much consistency.

    By Blogger bluegill, at 6:57 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • It's not WHO says it, it's WHAT said. Be rude, and you WILL be deleted. I don't care who it is.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 6:57 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • I should have expected this

    By Blogger East Ender, at 6:58 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I just legitimately don't understand how you can read a lot of what's already been posted and single out one person.

    There have been a lot of cheap shots and rudeness.

    By Blogger bluegill, at 7:00 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • The "cheap shots" and "rudeness" you mention seem to mostly be coming from issues that are NOT truly related to City Business.
    It is the content, not the person, which is being singled out as objectionable.
    A point I cannot seem to get accross.
    Keep it productive, or keep it going somewhere else.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 7:26 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • To New Alb Annie,
    You seem reasonable and your dialogue is appropriate and open-minded.
    This is a public invitation for posting privlieges if you would like.
    You may e-mail me personally.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 7:30 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • If New Alb Annie specifically noted that she would have dialogue only with responsible people, which she did, and if she continued to have a dialogue with me, which she also did, and if now she is sufficiently responsible to be extended posting privileges, exactly what is it that you're trying to say?

    Truth is, I can now become anonymous, and you would almost certainly NOT delete my posts, solely because those posts would no longer have MY name alongside.

    Thus, you're actually censoring me, and not the content, and holding accountable people to a higher standard than anonymous ones.

    Should have expected it? Yes, but that's what happens when you policy isn't rational.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 7:43 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • huh?
    Your first paragraph is nonsense.
    And, no, it is not the person, it is the content.
    I assure you, unless you specifically intend to try to "fool" me, I will react the same in my editing protocal.
    I stand beside my "policy":
    Be nice or be gone.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 7:55 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 8:02 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • While you were gone, New Alb Annie and I engaged in a conversation here that was interrupted by an anonymous questioner. Annie refused to engage the flamer, noting that she didn't have enought time to do so, but would converse with people who were serious and brought good things to the table.

    Hence, my first paragraph above.

    Of course, my value system prevents me from posting as "anonymous" to test your assertion that it is content and not the individual.

    It is very disappointing to me that you began as an advocate of free speech, and have now arrived at the current juncture.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 8:02 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:15 PM, June 01, 2005  

  • The main point I am getting is that Laura doesn't care who posts, but is concerned about the tone and content of the posts. For example, attacking someone because their grammar or spelling may not be the best doesn't serve any purpose but to just be unpleasant and superior. Poor spelling bugs me too, but it's what the person is trying to say that's pertinent.

    Referring to someone as a Luddite or flat-earther because they have an opposite viewpoint wouldn't be acceptable. Telling someone they must be an idiot in response to their post wouldn't fly.

    In other words, don't get so worked up and righteously indignant when people post things that you disagree with. If you're confident that your opinion is the correct one, you must have valid reasons for feeling that way, and you should be confident enough that you don't have to attack or belittle someone who feels differently.

    Respectful discussion and exchange here could yield some very positive outcomes, but if there is a lot of in-fighting and mistrust, we won't get anywhere.

    By Blogger New Alb Annie, at 6:37 AM, June 02, 2005  

  • Annie, the problem is that in any discourse, there is rhetorical style at play.

    Let's say that I refrain from directly terming someone here a Luddite, but go on to say that the embrace of certain positions is a trait of Luddites everywhere.

    As such, I have not attacked the individual (strictly speaking, there can be no personal attacks directed against anonymous individuals, since their identity is unknown).

    And yet, I strongly suspect that such a statement would have Laura's axe hanging over it, with at least a preliminary presumption that it is somehow negative.

    How about this one: “Laura, thanks for having this Blog. You’re providing a positive public service by helping me to keep NA Confidential spic ‘n’ span.”

    Is this a compliment or a dig?

    Maybe both.

    Annie, in truth, you did the same thing a couple of days ago, following a statement of fact with a seemingly unrelated question:

    Statement: “I do not know her (Kay Garry) personally, so I cannot and will not comment upon her personal reputation or conduct.”

    Question: “However, let me ask you this: If Garry were your employee, how would you feel about her competency?”

    You’ll remember that I didn’t agree with the assessment of the anonymous poster that this is an example of passive-aggressive, and that’s because it’s a sly, subtle stiletto of rhetorical style, one that I appreciate.

    Your words remain on the board, as they well should. Not only that, but your demeanor has been declared praiseworthy ... as it is, and has been for so long as you've posted.

    We’ll see if Laura consistently applies this discretion, as there has been a pronounced tendency thus far for people here to discern personal attacks in simple disagreement.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 9:06 AM, June 02, 2005  

  • New Albanian,

    Quite honestly, I did not realize that the phraseology in my Kay Garry post would be perceived as a subtle dig (or even as passive-aggressive). Maybe I could have worded my post better. The point I wished to make, and asked for commentary on, was--she may be a nice person (and I have no reason to think that she isn't), but what do you think of her professional performance based upon the condition of our city's books? And now I think we've exhausted this topic.

    There are some intelligent, insightful people posting here and also on your blog. I think Laura will be fair. And if you think she isn't, I believe she will be open to discussion.

    By Blogger New Alb Annie, at 9:30 AM, June 02, 2005  

  • NEWS FLASH: The judge would NOT dismiss the case of the people that were standing up about their park being taken away from them by CHODO. The Linden Meadows people are going to trial. If I understood Ms. Valla Ann Bolovschak at the last Council Meeting, it seems this was her point. When you don't follow the proper procedures this is what you can expect to happen. It's not "WHAT" you are trying to do. It's how you go about doing it! CHODO should do what they should have done in the first place and move thoses houses to the dozens of other lots the City already owns. Who would ever be so generous in the future to donate their land to the city if this was allowed to happen? I sure wouldn't.... ONE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!!

    By Anonymous Concern Taxpayer, at 5:04 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • It's worth noting that when and if a place is found for the houses that currently comprise the Used House Lot, they'll become housing for other LITTLE people who can't afford housing.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 5:31 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • I believe the questions posed by new alb annie regarding the city's financial woes, and why, or how we got to where we are, are valid and deserve consideration.
    I would be very curious to know the qualifications, training, degrees, or other educational or even practical experience, that could give me a bit more confidence that our city officials are both capable and competent to solve these problems.
    Again, it's not about WHO it is, it's about WHAT it is. A very difficult job needs done.
    Perhaps Mrs. Garry is a delightful person, but should we be putting our faith in her abilities as a budgetary wizard?
    If the State can't make heads nor tails of the city's past 2 audits, how can we confidently expect Mrs. Garry to "fix" everything? I wish her luck (and patience).

    By Blogger East Ender, at 5:31 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • To the new albanian -
    That's the last of it.
    Who are you referring to as "...other little people who can't afford housing"?
    What a disrespectful comment to make concerning people and families who need AFFORDABLE housing for their FIRST time home ownership opportunity.
    Once again, you missed the "what", and went right to the "who", and slammed them.
    Unless New Albany wants it's neighborhoods to become 70% rental-occupied, we should applaud home-ownership opportunities. Have you counted the For-Sale signs recently?
    These are families who may not be as fortunate financially than yourself, but does that make them "little"?
    Shame on you, and please get off this blog. I'm asking nicely.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 5:47 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • Laura, both of us just said exactly the same thing - we just said it differently. Nothing I said about little people was malicious - "little people" was coined by concern taxpayer, not me.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 6:00 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • east ender: I hope you will stop this "Sarcasm" on your blog! ONE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! People want to be informed. And come tomorrow what I wrote will be in the C/J and New Albany Tribune. When you play the rules of life. And do the best you can for your family. And the "American Dream" is to buy your first home. Most people buy what they can afford. There is a big difference in signing "ONE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE" vs the new albanian comments.I totally agree with your reply comments. From A-Z Comments on your blog. We are being attacked for what we feel or think. Or how we express things. There is a difference with disagreeing and flat attacking people! This is an outta control BULLY! This to me is not What Freedom Of Speech is about. This is are Town too!!!! And enough is enough. By the way Mr. Baylor. I am a first time homeowner. I bought what I could afford. So I guess I am one of those so called "little people" and Damn Proud Of It. There is alot of so called little people in New Albany and they are also concern Taxpayers. All that we ask from this City Adminstration is give us the truth and the real facts. We demand to be heard.

    By Anonymous Concern Taxpayer, at 11:48 PM, June 02, 2005  

  • As to Valla Ann's questions and comments during the last city council meeting, I would like to comment about why I think folks like her and support her efforts, and I'd also like to respond to
    'bluegill' who has asked what makes people think she has a valid point, or that her remarks have any value?
    First, she bucks the good 'ol boy system right out loud, and on her own 2 feet. That's courage in this town. You gotta like that if you're a concerned citizen.
    Furthermore, she quoted State laws. She read them verbatim. Then she followed each with an axample of how it was apparently violated.
    Can't much argue with that.
    When a citizen takes the time to research the laws and comes to the council with legitimate concerns pertaining to those laws, she should be met with some rational response.
    When a motion is made, and seconded, should a vote not follow? I was at another city meeting where the same thing happened. It just flys in the face of percieved proper procedural conduct.
    Then, when the newspaper article followed, it was outright shock. This city's administration took pot shots at several people and threatened VA with a lawsuit!
    Assumptions were made and accusations flew, not from VA, but from our own city administration.
    Some of the most respected people in this town got ripped in that article, and with nothing more than assumption.
    VA didn't come to the council meeting on assumptions, she came with research. Public record documents and State Law statues.

    By Blogger East Ender, at 2:27 AM, June 03, 2005  

  • I applaud home ownership by any sized people, would like to see fewer rental properties and more single family dwellings, and have neither written anything to the contrary, nor believe anything to the contrary.

    How can it be an attack if I agree with you?

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 9:20 AM, June 03, 2005  

  • From what I was told today. There is no grounds or merit for a slander suit against Ms. Valla Ann Bolovschak. After City Council tapes being heard. Also I was told Ms. Bolovschak did not even mention Mrs. Kay Garry's name not even one time after listening to these tapes.

    By Anonymous Legalbeagle, at 12:34 AM, June 04, 2005  

  • Who told you?

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 8:13 AM, June 04, 2005  

  • Here is the text from the Courier-Journal's brief today on the Linden Meadows subdivision.

    Subdivision on hold for more court action

    A subdivision of affordably priced homes on Linden Street in western New Albany can't go forward yet under a ruling by Special Judge Cecile Blau in a lawsuit that has delayed the development for several months.

    The Community Housing Development Organization, which is developing the Linden Meadows subdivision, had asked Blau for quick dismissal of the suit, filed by opponents of the plan.

    But in a decision issued Thursday, she said that more information and more legal arguments are needed to decide the issue raised by the subdivision's opponents.

    That issue is whether a clause in a 1935 deed -- requiring the land to be used for a public golf course or park -- is still valid. Additional hearing dates haven't been set in the case.

    By Blogger The New Albanian, at 12:28 PM, June 04, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

r

Create a Link

<< Home