[By way of explanation I would like to make clear that the following post was written as a response to the fact that a post I wrote called 'Out of Joint' was completely and summarily removed by Admin, with the justification he includes above, as a consequence of an anonymous complaint he received.]
You set this place up presumably - you invented it and you are it's genius loci. You make it's rules, presumably many of them are not the product of any kind of moral position on what can and cannot be said, but rather consequent on things like libel laws.
I infer this from certain things you said, which made it sound as though you're a man who has had annoyed councillors or Asda representatives on the phone. Things like your imploring 'please don't prosecute me' caveat at the top.
"it is also my wish to post that my opinions are neutral and will stay neutral on the forums and any views placed on the forums are not that of Exmouth Online, East Devon Online and are the views and opinions of those who have posted them."
These people don't have any arguments and all they seem to want to do is stop us from saying so.
A libel, may I remind you admin - is the publication of a false statement that damages a person's reputation. The key part here is not 'damages a person's reputation'. Damaging a person's reputation, it will probably shock you to know, is perfectly acceptable, legally and morally. The key part is 'false'. If you can demonstrate that what you said is true then you can say what you like. At least, that's the theory, which doesn't seem to apply on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter.
I wonder, exactly what do you think the point of having this forum to discuss the new Asda development actually is? i'm rather puzzled. You may as well shut the thing down as far as i can see. Because any discussion we can have about it will be hobbled if we can't mention anyone involved or anything they said or our opinions about it.
This constant self-censorship, rather than the sense of decency or propriety it is often mocked up as, perhaps accounts for the unthreatening anodyne discussions of the Asda plans you see in the papers. Everyone is terrified of litigation. This all works in the corporations favour. If they can make you so frightened and self-conscious that you can't speak they don't even have to bother calling their lawyers.
A discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of this thing should be robust otherwise it's pointless. Tough, but fair. We're grown people I suppose, not consumptive Romantic poets who expire when confronted with a harsh word? We can take a little rough and tumble can't we?
You say we can discuss these issues but we can't be insulting. On the face of it that sounds reasonable enough. But when I look at the way you apply it, it isn't. The idea that what I said was insulting is particularly ironic, since my post was partly about the fact that name-calling is what the other side engage in, pretty much exclusively. They never get nailed for that, even though they are elected officials and ought to act with some gravitas, whereas I, a greasy peasant, am instantly pilloried if my conduct strays outside the parameters of Edwardian salon badinage.
I hope you can understand that whether a person feels insulted on hearing the truth is neither here nor there. I hope you can understand that all deeply unpleasant people throughout history all thought they were pretty good guys. I should imagine Pol Pot thought he was a hell of a guy. I expect he helped old ladies across the road. If you told him he was a genocidal psychopath he would've been quite put out. Should we not mention the mounds of skulls then, for fear of contradicting a person's image of themselves?
What matters is what is true and real. Not people's hurt egos and not the lies they tell themselves about who they are. We don't have time to indulge them i'm afraid.
When you stand up in front of a group of people and espouse a position you should expect that people will disagree with it. If it is a particularly contentious position you should expect that people will disagree with it vociferously. I know the person I was talking about doesn't expect that. He expects what he calls 'positive' criticism - by which he means....who knows what? Criticism he likes I suppose. What use to you is criticism that you like? I can see I am in the intellectual company of people who are not used to bracing rigour in their debates.
Does anyone know what personal criticism actually *is*? Because I'm not sure I do. It's one of those grey areas. Nominally it's playing the man and not the ball. I think I play hard but I think I play fair. I don't think I ever played the man.
To continue the footballing _meta_phor - I'm like one of those pacey forwards that plays on the shoulder of a high defensive line, looking for the ball over the top, just as the defenders step up. P_layer_s like me rely on a good linesman. If a linesman isn't paying attention he can make terrible and unjust mistake with someone like me. Because by the time the ball lands I'm in places I really oughtn't to be - in acres of space, bearing down on goal. If you weren't paying attention - if you looked away for a second, you'd think when you see me that I must've been offside to get into that position. But I wasn't. It's not where people are when the ball lands, it's where people are when the ball is played. I'm just good. And, if the linesman isn't on his game, the better I get the more trouble I get into. Not fair is it?
It's not my job to be a cheerleader for other people's grand plans. If I don't think they're a good idea i reserve the right to say so. If people are insulted I'm afraid I don't care. That is just an epiphenomenon. What is important is the truth what I said, or otherwise. If you disagree with me then please act in a civilised manner and debate it with me. Don't respond with violence by threatening me with censorship. Don't insult me by telling me i insulted you. Just, as they say in primary schools, use your words.
In a way these things are flattering. You know you must be doing some good when people threaten to cut off your ability to talk about things and start moralising to try and get you to shut up. I have learned, over the years, that appeals to my better nature are always self-interested.
I liked the thing you wrote about reputations. I really don't care about mine so don't worry on my behalf, admin. I know who I am and don't care how I am perceived. I leave reputations to people who care about them - people who, by and large, have the worst reputations. Honest people don't work at being seen any particular way - that just happens as a consequence of the way they live their lives. Remember Alastair Campbell, with a sheaf of papers, storming into the channel 4 studios, to defend his reputation? What kind of planet do these people live on?
The forums reputation, on the other hand, will be as a place where people cannot have a reasonable debate because the possibility of it has been stifled. Is that the reputation for the forum you want?
If you have any evidence that I insulted anyone, rather than criticising their argument or their behaviour, I'd like you to produce it please admin. If you can't I expect an apology.
Good luck
Regards
Jon
). Further more, I have to keep to these forums to which I set. I also have to be seen to carry out action that means these rules are being kept. This is why I have posted on the forums and is not reflective of whatever views I have on the comments made.