facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

And our message board was bad?



Published: Sun, March 9, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

By Todd Franko (Contact)


When I arrived here in 2007, among the many criticisms I heard about The Vindicator was our Vindy.com message board and what a travesty it was for the Valley.

The criticism was certainly about the anonymity of the posters. But people were equally outraged at the audacity of the comments and demanded that we police such errors and absurdities in that forum.

I was not a fan of our message board then, nor am I today as I write this.

Today, the volume of complaints is not nearly what it was back then.

But wow, how I long for those days.

Though there is less message-board activity at Vindy.com, the Internet seems to be a worse place in terms of errors and absurdities.

Social media — Facebook, Twitter and the like — can fuel an opportunity for our speech to have a reach that is unprecedented. And I know we’re not always better for it.

I’ll admit at this point (because many of you are likely set to point back at me) that we, as traditional, old-school gatekeepers of freedom of speech, are far from perfect. We — being journalists in print or broadcast — experience both failures and successes in what we say.

But traditional media have a process, filter and conscience that — over the course of a week, a year or a career — has served our democracy fairly well for a few hundred years.

(But again, we are not perfect.)

Yet I’m dismayed when I get to some social-media forums where process, filter and conscience come down to “If I can type it, I should!” Some people and forums have routinely torched various Valley people and companies, including us, for a while now.

I am stunned that many people do so with their names attached. Though that’s far better than the anonymous rants by cellar dwellers, I think it’s more unnerving. I don’t necessarily want to see you naked, nor do I want to always know what you’re thinking.

Two people this week left me shaking my head. Both were commenting on the Youngstown State University president situation.

First thing to understand about this event is that there are no fewer than 20 full-time media groups trying to cover this story. In addition to the seven just in our city alone, the outlets also are based in Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, Chicago and southern Illinois. This is in addition to eager citizens Googling all that they can on Randy Dunn, Jim Tressel, Southern Illinois University, YSU, University of Akron and more.

All media are feeding off one another once one gets a fresh tidbit. Chances are, you are not following all 20. However, that’s part of our job. So we have a unique idea of who reported what and when.

The two people were ostensibly celebrating news generated by the student newspapers at YSU and Southern Illinois University. But both felt the need to take a shot at us and other local media, as well. “Why did a student newspaper have this, and not the professionals” was their theme.

Shots happen. But what stunned me was when I tried to teach and explain as I just did above, both offered a rather firm “screw you.”

One was a university worker, and the other was an esteemed legal mind.

It’s worth noting here that the entire “Randy Dunn is going to SIU” saga was broken by the Daily Egyptian, the student newspaper in Carbondale, Ill. This is important because you have to celebrate local journalism wherever you encounter it. And in celebrating it, perhaps you can even encourage and support it.

Neither of the two highly educated folks I engaged this week found any value in calling the newsroom or sending an email to us saying “Hey, did you know ...”

We’re glad that many do — offering to contribute instead of kick. Both require the same amount of effort.

When I pointed out to the YSU staffer that the other media are to be congratulated, I added that in the meantime, YSU was referenced 18 times in The Vindicator over last weekend for various academic and athletic feats.

The reply was: Well of course that’s so, a major YSU donor also controls The Vindicator.

Award points there for imagination and absurdity, but not for accuracy.

The lawyer called me thin-skinned and said he was only trying to compliment the student paper for their work.

I asked him to revisit his part about “why doesn’t The Vindicator or other local media have this?”

Others reading today will likely join the thin-skinned talk, and that’s fine. But in all honesty, we probably deal with more complaints in our first hour than most businesses do in a week, and it’s as much for what we do right as for what we do wrong.

The key point I’d ask you to ponder is, the art of “right” when speaking or posting.

Early in my career, I learned appreciation for this principle:

You have the right to say many things. But do you have the capacity to say what’s right, and, at the right time?

It’s kind of the old free-speech test of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

I’ve seen many in my profession abuse that principle.

I’ve seen many more in the community do such, and now you can see it every day in various social- media forums.

Heck, you can see it virtually every minute.

Twenty years ago, bad speech stayed at the bar with the drunk guy or at the family table with the crazy aunt.

Now, every citizen is blessed with a reach and an ability they’ve never had before. It’s a reach even our forefathers could never conceive as they placed the final period mark on their ambitious First Amendment idea.

Some of our greatest societies collapsed due to their excess.

I sure hope our ability to say more than ever before doesn’t do the same for us.

Todd Franko is editor of The Vindicator. He likes emails about stories and our newspaper. Email him at tfranko@vindy.com. He blogs, too, on vindy.com. Tweet him, too, at @tfranko.


Comments

1NoBS(2004 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The right to free speech comes with a codicil, if you will, that forbids such things as "fighting words" and intentionally causing a panic (by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, for example). And, as a further observation, free speech is not omnipresent - it's guaranteed while one is in public, but not necessarily when one is not in a public setting. One cannot say whatever one wants, without repercussions, while one is at work. One cannot enter another's home and say things that offend the homeowner. And so on. The Vindy Forums are privately owned - by the Vindicator. The Vindicator can choose what people are allowed to say, and what they're not, while the people are using the forums. Currently, this is only done by means of filters that remove objectionable words, replacing their appearance with "@#$%&". But the Vindicator would be within its rights if it chose to have someone actively monitor, or moderate, its forums. All over the Internet, there are far more moderated forums than there are unmoderated. The unmoderated forums tend to be free-for-alls, with insults, personal attacks, and people shilling their personal agendas at the top of their lungs. And any rules that may be in place, in an unmoderated forum, are routinely ignored. Once one poster gets away with ignoring any rules, other posters disregard the rules, too. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the Vindicator to bring a moderator to its forums.

Suggest removal:

2NoBS(2004 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Now that my rant is out of the way, let me say that I agree with you, Todd, that it's amazing what people will say in social media, even though their own name is attached. Criminals are apprehended and arrested because of their social media posting. Employees, disgruntled or not, have been fired over their social media commentary. Yet it continues unabated.

It used to be that there were only a handful of people who lacked the ability to restrain themselves from blurting out whatever crossed their minds, on the internet. They were identifiable, and either ignored or used as a source of amusement. But the further we go, the more people are spewing nonsense - it's almost as of their fingers are typing without the benefit of the brain's guidance - and fewer and fewer people are able to discern facts from crazy-person diatribes.

The monster that the Internet has evolved, and continues to evolve, into is something the Founding Fathers could never have forseen. I fear that one of the worse aspects of the Internet is the inability to differentiate between good, factual reporting and research, and agenda-driven misinformation. But what is a practical, workable solution?

Suggest removal:

3Photoman(1018 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The message boards provide a public service in allowing we citizens to vent some of our frustrations with the massive corruption that remains unchecked. True, impartial journalism seems unable to enlighten us as it once did. Fear seems to constrain "journalists" and editors while government lies to us and restricts our rights and freedoms. All the while, columnists sit and ponder why we are sometimes vile in our postings.

Suggest removal:

4UticaShale(854 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

And still you do nothing about requiring accountability here as well by the "celler dwellers."
I'll be the first to come up from the "bunker" if you require all to. I don't get it, actually I really do, it is sensationalism, all media look for it now.
Franko, you ought to try it. One of the largest message boards I ever was a part of was GoMarcellusshale.com in OUR region, the membership was enormous, the Frackpot trolls were kept at bay and community thrived. The site is slow since the energy giants are in the play now, but what a community tool for landowners.
In any event, I believe one has a right to free speach, but they must back it up with facts if it damages.
Give it a try Vindy, when people meet and shake hands, they are not "naked."

Suggest removal:

5eevo(51 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Plus what else would I do all day if I couldn't troll on Vindy and spread the right wing talking points? I'm not getting a job, and nobody will talk to me in person.

Suggest removal:

6dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

@eivo, maybe there is a reason why people label you as such. You never disagree with anybody when their views are different than yours, do you?Not allowing someone to speak? Kind of like ISSA did to the gentleman from Maryland?
@at Utica, just because the site doesn't REQUIRE you to use your own name, it doesn't mean that you can't. You are free to if you choose.

Suggest removal:

7UticaShale(854 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

@don't, you are missing the point. Nothing wrong with being incognito as long as one does not hide behind it as they throw stones.

As an example, if you have time read a "Cambridge" post , he can't debate so he starts spewing mud all over the place and never even tries to stay on topic. And he enjoys cowarding behind his "stage name."
Actually this is a phenom in the blog world and has become a problem. More sites throw trolls out as soon as they start the one-sided debate.
I've been on message boards for years and one of the dirtiest is the Vindy, because Trolls live here who aren't policed and they will use every evil response they can, and know that they rarely get thrown out.

Suggest removal:

8kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

So, Todd, if you're not a fan of the Vindy Message Board- what do you propose to do about it? The Genie got out of the Bottle a long time ago and there's no putting him back in- it's part of the Digital Revolution that's changing the world and upsetting a lot of apple carts- one of them the traditional print industry- places like the "Vindicator PRINTING Company". Pretty soon all you're going to have are electronic journals as printed newspapers go the way of the Horse and Buggy.

Is that bad? I'm not sure, I have mixed feelings, but, I do know one thing: the Vindy wouldn't be doing it- spending money for a digital edition and encouraging looney tunes like me to comment- if they didn't think they could make money that way (and, also, knowing they have to or go under). Mark and Mrs J. aren't spending all that money just to keep us "Cellar Dwellers" happy.

By the way, Todd, did you ever stop to think that it's we "Cellar Dwellers" who help pay your salary? When I spend time with the Vindy on-line- which I do almost daily- I get exposed to a lot of advertising that get put there to be noticed by people who post messages ( maybe were not up to your "lofty" journalistic standards but it's a fact of life that your newspaper couldn't survive without people like us- at least we pay attention and do more than stare at the TV screen)

Also, quite a few of us basement people are also paid subscribers- as I am- 40 plus years- so that means we leave our cellars in the morning and trudge upstairs to pick up our printed Vindy which we have paid to have delivered to us. So, in a sense, though you may demean and insult us- it's people like me that support you in your livelihood.

P.S. By the way, I read your column every week and I find a lot to praise- and a lot to dislike- I liked your last one- a good human interest story and I said so- but I hated the one before that (about Randy Dunn)- and I also said so- but, I do believe, I kept my comments factual- I don't think I called you a "Journalistic Hack" or a "No-account Scribbler"- terms on the same level of insult as "Cellar Dweller".

Suggest removal:

9kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

@ Utica. I don't get what you mean by 'trolls". Who is it that you think should be thrown out and who get's to make that decision?

It seems to me there's a good mechanism in place already to "police" behavior on this message board- the "Flag this Comment" if Offensive line. It works, I know from personal experience- I went over the top once and made some statements about somebody that I shouldn't have- there was a complaint- and everything I said was deleted- as if it never existed. I didn't complain, because I knew I was wrong, and- let's face it- I'm only human- not everything I say or write is wonderful, witty or wise!

Suggest removal:

10walter_sobchak(1979 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Mark Twain once said "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." With the advent of the internet, this quotes meaning has been diminished. However, for many years, newspapers have printed the news as they see fit through editors who are mere mortal people, subject to demands, wants, wishes and external pressures. So, along comes this new tool, and the light has been exposed on the media.

Bloggers and message board have caused the old print media to either up their game or get out of the BUSINESS. That's right, Todd, you work for a business and you had better adapt. I mean, even Bert made SIX whole posts to his "Stir-fry" blog last year alone, ROTFLMAO. Currently, I keep my print subscription to keep this paper in business because I believe it is essential for a vibrant community. But, to respond those that get under your skin by calling commentors posts "anonymous rants from cellar dwellers" is childish, unprofessional and demeaning to those who choose to read your paper. C'mon Todd, man, stand in front of a mirror and check to see if you have a pair. To equate an anonymous post to someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is ridiculous.

Or, maybe you would rather have your advertisers realize people are cancelling subscriptions and no longer "clicking" on the website. I'm not sure insulting posters, who may be customers, is really smart business.

Suggest removal:

11questionreality(363 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

As Kernal wrote, "It seems that this paper takes great joy beating up certain county departments and ignores the actions of other offices."

Meaningful democracy cannot survive without the free flow of information. Withholding information is a form of propaganda and helps decay democracy. It is not something one would expect from a free press.

When you withhold you do not "contribute," you "kick." Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and kicked.

Regarding "societal collapse," to quote John Leo, “The belief that large disasters can be averted by tolerating small ones never works.”

Suggest removal:

12borylie(825 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I used to occasionally write into the Vindy with my right leaning views. Of course you have to include your name and town. My dad's house and car was egged. Another time they received vile phone calls. My dad's name is the same as mine and in the phone book.
Mr. Franko, I'd like to know one thing. Does the views of your editorial staff in the opinion column, ever influence the way the Vindy gives us the news? Or doesn't give us the news?

Suggest removal:

13dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I like how eivo plays the wholesome victim in this whole situation. He never instigates an argument, always agrees respectfully with people with views other than his, and never calls names. YEAH RIGHT! And don't site me that stupid rule you claim to go by, of waiting until you are attacked 3 times before name calling because that is a farce! If you make idiotic, insensitive, comments, then chances are you will be verbally attacked, whether you are right wing, left wing, it doesn't matter. Do you think that only the right wing commenters are attacked for their views? If you do, then you are delusional. You only want to remain anonymous 1. So you have some purpose in life. 2. You can say things that if you said to someone in person, you would get a knuckle sandwich in return. So if you can't handle a heated debate, then don't troll on social sites acting like a tool.

Suggest removal:

14dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I ask anyone new reading this, that already doesn't know eivo and how he acts, to click on his comments and make their own judgements. It won't take you long to see comments with name calling and insensitive remarks. I apologize now for asking you to read them.

Suggest removal:

15eevo(51 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Listen you right wing nut jobs. Get it through your thick headed skulls you dumbocrat imbeciles, that I respect all of your dim witted opinions and do not call you names.

Suggest removal:

16Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,

Your attack/attacked protocol is of rather recent vintage, since at most the first of the year. Actually, I thought it might have been your New's Years resolution.

I've followed you since mid October of 2013, and your attacks were not so restrained then.

IMO what irritates people about you is that you are consistently commenting, basically repeating the same thing over and over. Someone has calculated that your average posting rate was 9 posts per day, since October. That would be OK if you were offering something new with each post, but most often that's not the case.

The thing is this: you seem to make your posts about you, rather than the subject.

Suggest removal:

17Sanjay1976(37 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

eivo (# 22)

That's a great idea, posting George Soros talking points over and over 90 times a day. Why didn't I think of that?

BTW, where can I find the talking points? Something like "GeorgeSorostalkingpoints.com"

And it's alright with you if I just cut-n-paste without giving the source?

Suggest removal:

18eevo(51 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

That's one!

Suggest removal:

19thirtyninedollars(319 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Wow so because people appreciate and enjoy their anonymity, they are a cellar dweller? Sir you are a tool who doesn't understand and if I had to explain it, you still wouldn't understand. Yet knowing how the editor of the paper thinks, it's perfectly understandable why the quality of the paper is what it is today.
So you would rather complain about anonymous posters than do real investigative journalism.

Suggest removal:

20borylie(825 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Godandcountry, very nicely put. I also want the Vindy to succeed. I was a Vindicator paper boy at the age of eight and fifty seven years later I can say I've never missed reading the Vindy cover to cover no matter where I was. I had it mailed to me while in the army and would read weeks of papers upon returning from vacation. Right now while in Florida I read and write this from my Ipad. That being said what I really want and have said many times in my 738 posts is that our newspeople are our last line of defense in making sure ALL government is is looking out for the people. There's no reason for the journalists to have an opinion,ideology or any bias. So Mr. Franco,just remember why newspapers have the rights they have. To basically have more power than government so as to protect the citizens.

Suggest removal:

21kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Well, Todd, you sure managed to stir up a Hornets Nest on this one! Good job.

I've given your comments some thought and what you say is partially true- a lot of the Posts are just junk and you have to wade through them- but a lot of what you read in newspapers (even yours) is junk and you have to wade through that, too- and the same is- particularly- true of TV- so where is the difference? In both cases- established media and citizen produced comments- you need to be careful and do fact checking.

Speaking for myself, I like your message board (not just because I get a chance to spout off- junk comments?)- but, also, because I find it highly educational. Here's just one example. The thread about the Russian Incursion into Ukraine- which I read earlier today (refraining, for once, to say anything) brought in Russia's attempted takeover of Georgia in 08 during the final day's of the Bush Presidency and made the argument that the media unfairly differentiated between the two events- and the other side just as stoutly denied it.

Now, I honestly don't know who is right, but that's not the point. The point is that it started me thinking in a new direction- broadened my perspective- and now I have to do some "fact checking" to see where the truth actually lies. And that's just one example- the same has happened to me again and again since I started visiting Vindy.com eighteen months ago- Highly educational as I said.

The way I see it- Electronic Message Boards- are the high-tech equivalent of the old-fashioned Town Hall Meeting (which you still find in some parts of New England- I think New Hampshire) where everybody in town from the Mayor to the guy that hangs out at the gas station (or lives in his Mom's Basement) gets a chance to voice their opinion- and then, of course, all the listeners have a chance to separate the wheat from the chaff- Fact Checking, as I said.

Suggest removal:

22author50(1121 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Undisclosed names works for AA. It seems to work wonders all across the message boards all over the Internet. The subject sure worked for Mr. Franco as I can't recall one of his columns generating so much fan mail. Bravo!

Suggest removal:

23HappyBob(285 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@Todd,
Wanted to reinforce kurtw's comments about inducing readers to do research for themselves.

Opinion based on facts is interesting, opinion based on political bias isn't.

Suggest removal:

24KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

High Tech Town Hall Meeting?

In the town hall we knew the participants, where they lived, whether they were intelligent and insightful and we came to know the degree of their investment in the common good.
Anonymous message boards - not so much.

We came to recognize the village idiot, and the ones who are just spouting off to claim their 15 seconds of fame.

In the town hall meeting, people asked to speak and the mayor gave them the floor. If they were disrespectful or off-topic they were stopped. If they were disruptive, the mayor would have them removed.

Anonymous message boards - not so much.

In the town hall meeting participants generally spoke once, unless responding to a question from the Selectmen.

Anonymous message boards - not so much.

Suggest removal:

25NilesOhio(760 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

While I think this whole article was an attempt to stir more activity in the board, I am grateful that at least we have this avenue of communicating with our neighbors. It is quite a stark contrast to the other newspaper in town that felt that the only winning move was not to play. And I believe anonymity is very important when disagreeing with some of the threatening individuals around our area.

While I often don't agree with some here and vice versa, it's generally kept civil by most. Unfortunately, it's always those few that carry it too far that ruin it for everyone else.

Suggest removal:

26eevo(51 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@KSU Grad, Village idiot? I resemble that remark!
@Todd I must say again, why would you want to lose a valuable resource like myself by getting rid of the message board? I can provide you a tremendous amount of information that you can learn from and write about in your paper. Ignore all of the George Soros talking points from the loony left, and just listen to me. If I hear it on Fox, it has to be true.

Suggest removal:

27SheDevil(120 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,

Franko "should consider retracting this article" Really???

His article was benign, and served to remind that "freedom of speech" can be carried to excess - that excess to out detriment.

And your parody on another's post about town hall meetings is just plain insulting.

You, sir, are among the few that NilesOhio refers to who ruin the experience for the rest of us.

Suggest removal:

28evio(43 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

now into my second fifth for the day

Suggest removal:

29Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,

here's the thing, you've been making the comment section into your personal playground.

I agree with jrolley. Require a facebook account to comment. Other sites have successfully made this transition.

Suggest removal:

30dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

so you want free speech eivo, you just want to hide behind the free speech you are demanding. Maybe if your name was attached, you would be a little more filtered in your comments. A little more sensitive to others perhaps. If you believe your posts are rational, and those are your true beliefs, have some conviction, be proud of them, and stand by them with your name attached. And your reasoning for not using FB is the funniest thing ever. If someone suggests using Facebook to log in, it is a conspiracy to squash conservative's speech. I know a lot of conservatives on FB and it is so easy to sign up for an account, a chimp could do it. You seem to know everything, except for how to create a FB account. Poor excuse. The real issue is that you want to hide behind your slanted views, irrational thoughts, and insensitive comments without the fear of being shunned in the community as you are in these comment sections.

Suggest removal:

31dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@Knightcap, at first I thought your question was quite stupid to be honest. My answer was to vote of course. The question isn't really relative though. But then I thought to myself, the people who spew out erroneus claims, smear local, state, and federal politicians anonymously, probably actually have more of an effect on an election than what voter fraud at the poll does. It is almost like the campaign ads run the couple days before election day. They say whatever you want in an ad, true or not, by the time voters have a chance to research it, and IF they research it, an opinion is formed and they have voted based on what they heard. These message boards are somewhat like those smear ads in a way.

Suggest removal:

32dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Are you referring to my last comment towards you Knight, because if you are, read again, because at first glance I thought your post was dumb, but then I said I thought about it, and it actually made me think. If you are talking about my comments towards eivo, I'm not going to say I don't get on him a lot because I do, and usually if you ask me, he deserves it. I always am pretty respectful to everyone, with exception of one or two who just make rude comments to get under my skin or just to be a tool in general.

Suggest removal:

33kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I just re-read Todd's column and one thing that struck me as odd is that he doesn't mention the thread where he said the alleged offenses occurred: "Shots happen. But what stunned me was when I tried to teach and explain as I just did above, both offered a rather firm “screw you.” He bases his entire column- in which he essential trashes the Vindy Message Board- on the fact that he was dissed by a couple of people on one thread- without listing the thread so we can go there and judge for ourselves.

Is that fair? It sounds like "hit and run" to me- in which you make an accusation and then run away without supplying evidence. I E-mailed Todd and asked him to lead me to the thread in question so I can judge for myself- but so far haven't gotten a response...

Suggest removal:

34Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,

This thread is about the vindy message board, not about your taunting another poster (deserved or not).

Your post at #54 has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. It has everything to do with you and another poster. You and dontbeafool are acting like children in a playground, taunting and teasing each other. The back and forth between you adds nothing to the discourse, and detracts from value of the overall message board.

If you want your own personal playground, go find it somewhere else - it's this personal animosity and petulant behavior that reinforces Franko's low opinion of the "message board"

Suggest removal:

35Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

You both are at fault.
Both are being childlike.

Suggest removal:

36thirtyninedollars(319 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I won't ever sign up to facebook and voluntarily give up my privacy online to them; just to comment on this site. I probably would never buy another vindy either.
Now that would be a good column vindy, how about preserving our privacy in the digital age and how the NSA and corporations like facebook are eroding and stripping them away. Just like the ediotr here wants.

Suggest removal:

37southsidedave(4840 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@thirtyninedollars - your IP Address is recorded on every site you visit...you are not invisible to the world - cheers!

Suggest removal:

38kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

There's plenty of ways for somebody determined enough to find out your true identity. One of them is to initiate a defamation of character lawsuit against you based on something you said about them on a thread. They go to a court and a subpoena is issued- Bottom Line: The Vindy has to surrender your name and it releases them from any liability for doing so- at least that's my understanding, maybe someone at the Vindy who maintains the web site can comment....

The reason I know about this is because it almost happened to me a while back: I made some statements about somebody- I don't even remember the thread- they took exception to and they threatened to sue me for Defamation of Character and force the Vindy to release my identity using the above procedure. I'm pretty sure the person who took umbrage at my remarks was a well know local political figure- who also happens to have a law practice (I hope I didn't let the "cat out of the bag" here!)- and who was hiding under a "non de plume" so the nonsensical nature of his remarks wouldn't be laid at his door step- injuring his law practice.

Needless to say, the above had a "chilling effect" on what I had to say for some time and I kept a "low profile". Wore off after a while, though.

Suggest removal:

39kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@ Jerryl "You (eivo) and dontbeafool are acting like children in a playground, taunting and teasing each other. The back and forth between you adds nothing to the discourse, and detracts from value of the overall message board."

Want to know what my theory is about these two- Eivo and Dontbeafool- they're actually one and the same person! Not so far fetched- you just register with two E-mail accounts and then have a go at it with yourself- back and forth- (I think Sid Caesar once had a routine like that and it was hilarious!) I'm thinking about doing something along those line myself... Could be interesting.

Suggest removal:

40kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Correction #60- should have read "nom de plume"

Suggest removal:

41kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

If Todd keeps this up he's going to overtake Russia pretty soon (Most Commented List)- They're almost Neck and Neck: Todd-64; Russia-72. (Todd 65- after I post this- I'm confident he'll beat out Vlad Putin).

Suggest removal:

42dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Eivo #54, of course you only used half of my sentence.
@ Kurt, don't ever imply that I am the same person as eivo again.
@jerry, you are probably right. I need to just ignore eivo all together. He brings out the very worst in me. Plus, IK that he thrives on the attention, so I will not respond to his lunacy anymore.

Suggest removal:

43Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@kurtw,
I've often wondered about that myself. It's awfully sad to imagine someone so longing for entertainment that they have to resort to arguing with themselves.

On the other hand "Don't" has been around a while longer, while "eivo" just started up in mid-October of '13. But that doesn't prove anything.

I just wish they would stop. BTW, the notion of referring to them as bickering children was offered by 76Ytown back in December - so I claim no originality.

eivo has spawned two other personalities, eevo and evio

Suggest removal:

44Sensible(118 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

with due credit to lovethiscity:

especially true of the children that are playing on these pages

"All postings herein are unfiltered, without fact check, and have, most likely, originated from a despondent sense of low self worth and the bitter resignation of personal failure and unrealized dreams."

Suggest removal:

45Elf2(75 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

The "message " I got from Todd's piece was:

'OMG, and the message board was bad in 07 ?? - you should see how bad it is now!
But thank goodness the volume of complaints directed to me is not as bad as it had been.
Am I going to do anything about it - unlikely (unless I start getting a lot of complaints).

Suggest removal:

46kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

No offense intended Guys- just having a bit of fun- (the eivo and dontbeafool as one line). Actually that was a really great Sid Caesar routine- of course, he did the accents too- Pure Fun!

Which brings me to Sensibles Post- what's wrong with having a bit of fun on these threads? Not everything has to be deadly serious- we're amateurs right?- unlike the professional Vindy Writers- who would get canned in one second if they got out of line in any way- strayed from the Party Line- which is to say what the Publisher (who signs their paychecks) wants them to say. I think at the root of Todds criticism may be jealousy in that he doesn't enjoy that kind of freedom anymore. I read somewhere- don't ask me who said it- that if you enjoy doing something- could be anything- playing baseball, fishing, or writing- don't start doing it for money- because in no time the enjoyment will disappear- it'll become a chore.

FLASH: I see by the latest score Todd is set to overtake Vladimir- they're almost neck and neck- at the rate were going we'll outdistance the Russians in no time.

Suggest removal:

47Elf2(75 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

To kurtw,
So we'll just assume that everything you've written is in jest?
What about all other posters? Just assume the they are just joking around?
How is the reader to tell the difference ?

Suggest removal:

48dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@jerry, you have acted a little childlike in the past as well, after reading some of your posts, it looks like you and Walter have done some squabbling yourself. So look in the mirror before pointing the finger at me. One of your numerous posts towards him......
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demands a firm US response

You are truly a jerk of monumental proportions.

March 5, 2014 at 1 p.m. permalinksuggest removal

Suggest removal:

49Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@dontbeafool,
Did you read the context of the monumental jerk comment?

It was in response to the suggestion that Putin should be the subject of a US drone strike.

I stand by the comment.

Suggest removal:

50Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@dontbeafool,
I would also mention that suggestion was NOT made by Walter. Just to be clear.

Suggest removal:

51dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Well the remarks I make in response to some, which you deem "childish" is often in response to idiotic statements as well. I am just saying I don't agree with a couple people on here, just like you don't, but I will take yours and the other commenter's statements to heart, be smarter in my responses to people looking for such reactions and just bite my tongue.

Suggest removal:

52Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

None of us are perfect, myself included. But "you know who" has been goading you, over and over. It's hard to not react to moronic comments.

When I realized that I was enabling - by responding - I try to curb my tongue.

Suggest removal:

53Sensible(118 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

It is possible that Franko's article is really referencing the "Discussion Groups" ?

Suggest removal:

54NBees(50 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I rarely comment, partly because the spit-spatting insults in existing comments can be a little intimidating (everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not everyone respects that) and sometimes, I just don't have anything to say. Still, the comments can be interesting and I see comments here or anywhere else as no different than a public discussion. People have discussed what they read in the newspaper since the first issue hit the stands... the internet just opens the discussion for all. When people have to be qualified to voice their own opinions, freedom of speech is gone.

I felt something in the reading, an undercurrent not put into words. In his conclusion, Mr. Franko stated, "Some of our greatest societies collapsed due to their excess." I think we are supposed to conclude that excess expression of uncensored personal opinions (right or wrong) on message boards and social media are harmful to our society, therefore we should guard our words, or better yet, censor or silence ourselves, not say anything at all. Or, maybe we are supposed to have our opinions handed to us, in nicely rolled up newspapers? Now in there is the undercurrent... the only thing in real danger of collapse due to the internet is the print newspaper, perhaps the very thing that put Vindy online and will help the Vindicator survive.

So, welcome to the Information Age where the free flow of news is openly discussed on message boards. Most people read comments like eating fish, pick out the meat and spit out the bones. If someone's opinion reveals their true nature, if they are obnoxious or rude, misinformed or just wrong, oh well. Is it not better to know that various opinions exist than to assume everyone else thinks exactly like you do?

Suggest removal:

55DwightK(1300 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I enjoy the comments under the stories quite a bit. Most posters are well behaved and occasionally you get more details that weren't printed in the original story.

As for the message boards themselves, I don't partake. Whenever I've looked at them in the past it looks like the same 6 people arguing with one another and it seemed like some people may have been logging in under multiple identities. That's a bit too weird for me.

Suggest removal:

56Sensible(118 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@DwightK,

When you say "the message boards themselves", are you referring to the discussion groups like "Talk of the Valley" or are you referring to this comment section (the board we are on right now)?

Suggest removal:

57WilliamC(10 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@NBees,

Key phrase: "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not everyone respects that"

Some have made being disrespectful to others a vocation, disparaging, belittling, deriding, and writing off comments or letters. Today's letter to the editor (3/14) and the comment is is prime example.

Suggest removal:

58DwightK(1300 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

The discussion groups like "Talk of the Valley".

Suggest removal:

59Sensible(118 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@WilliamC,
Agreed, the first comment to the letter on fixing potholes is a good example of a "nameless" commenter ridiculing the letter writer. Fortuntely, there are just a few of these disrespectful posters. It does make you wonder what motivates folks to act that way.

@ DwightK,
That's what I think as well, the discussion groups like "Talk of the Valley" or "Politics" tend to be much more like the Wild Wild West of messaging.

Suggest removal:

60jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I can't imagine any other city, in this country, except Detroit, having a message board with so many lefties on it. These guys are not only in left field, but are beyond the left field wall. You can't debate them, because if you put up a great message, they'll call you a filthy name as a retort.

Suggest removal:

61KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,
Perhaps you don't even realize it when you make provovcative statements.

In the example you provided (regarding YSU tuition), you said " If the students don't like YSU, then they can vote with their feet. That is exactly what my daughter is going to do. She has enrolled in a thug free out of state University this fall."

You had made your point, but then added the gratuitous inference that YSU is populated by "thugs". Completely unnecessary and not germane to the tuition discussion. Consequently, I can understand where some would view that as an "attack" on their University and it's students.

BTW, the term "thug" is evolving to refer to a young black male. In that context, your choice of words to describe your daughter's new school ..... well need I say more?

Suggest removal:

62dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

very well put KSU. It is almost like he is inviting controversial comments to return his way. I was suckered into providing many of those responses, usually out of anger, but no longer. Not just him, but numerous other people.
YSU isn't the best college in the world, but it is local, and is a less expensive alternative to many other pricey colleges.
The city would be worse without it.

Suggest removal:

63KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Eivo,
a bit over reactive tonight, are we?

My point is that the "thug" reference was gratuitous.

Check out thug.com, check out "I hate thug music"'. Maybe your book definition of thug is not the current slang usage.

The point is you need to be careful with the pejoratives that you use, they may carry a different meaning than what you intend.

When you attack someone's alma mater, people tend to take that personally (regardless of your intent).

Suggest removal:

64KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

That you take an interest in your child's safety is great.

That's not the point.

The point is that you seem to go out of your way to provocate.

Suggest removal:

65Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Another eivoism:
"If one criticizes Obama he will get a knock on the door from the IRS or from Holder with a felony charge."

Given that you have been relentless in your criticism of Obama, if your statement were true you would be addicted and under indictment.

So, if it is untrue, why say these things?

Suggest removal:

66Jerryl(105 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Opps, that audited, not addicted (autocorrect error)

Apologies

Suggest removal:

67KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,
Reminder that you said, "If one criticizes....". You didn't say 'If you are a big enough target that criticizes.....'

Regardless, that's not the point.

The point is that you seem to be deliberately provocative. Either you are doing it consciously, subconsciously or don't know what a provocateur is.

Suggest removal:

6876Ytown(1293 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Maybe not provocateur but provocative leaning toward facetious.

Eivo puts his opinions out there but rather than attacking his position it would be refreshing to hear the other side of the argument. Personal attacks go nowhere.

When people attack the person delivering the message instead of debating the issue raised by their message, they are reacting to someone placing them in a state of cognitive dissonance - or where their view of the world is suddenly interrupted and made uncomfortable by new information or ideas that conflicts with their established understanding and belief system.

Suggest removal:

69KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@76Ytown,

eivo and you keep refering to personal attacks.

I simply said in post 89 that: "Perhaps you don't even realize it when you make provocative statements. "

Do you construe that to be a personal attack?

I could have just as easily said to eivo, 'Perhaps you don't even realize it when you are ridiculing or belittling others.'

Consider the simple two posts 43 and 44. The author of 43 made the suggestion to "just require a facebook account to comment like most sites do these days".

eivo's responded with "Why not require a Social Security Number too?"

Clearly eivo was ridiculing jrolley's suggestion. Facetious ? Belittling jrolley's opinion ?

Then consider eivo's response to Jenna's letter to the editor asking for pothole repair. How could his comment to Jenna be taken as anything other then snarky and condescending.

IMO that he may not realize the effect of his words, is hardly an attack.

Suggest removal:

70KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Why would I think that, much less say it?

Suggest removal:

7176Ytown(1293 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

All sounds like he was being facetious to me (funny) instead of sarcastic or snarky (mean) or condescending (snobby).

Eivo, whatever the reason, you definitely "get a rise out of folks" with your opinions. Oops, there I go again using an idiom which always gets my point misunderstood.

Suggest removal:

72kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

Eivo

"When people attack the person delivering the message instead of debating the issue raised by their message, they are reacting to someone placing them in a state of cognitive dissonance - or where their view of the world is suddenly interrupted and made uncomfortable by new information or ideas that conflicts with their established understanding and belief system."

Glad you reminded me of that. I studied Psychology a long time ago and the theory of "cognitive dissonance" is one of the concepts that came up. Explains a lot and you're pinning it to Liberals was just superb- and so appropriate and deserved- Well Done!

Suggest removal:

73KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,
RE Post # 104.

Please expound on that. Our are you trying to bait me?

Suggest removal:

74KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I simply pointed out to you (because you didn't know) that the word "thug" today is being used by the younger generation in a much different manner than you or I would.

I only learned this recently when I asked a granddaughter what "thug music" was. I heard this phrase during the "loud music trial", being used by the defendant.

I offered that as a BTW, because I suspected that you didn't know that. Owing to the possible context someone else might take, "thug" might be a term you'd want to be careful about using particularily around college kids.

Hardly what I would refer to as a racial bias attack.

Suggest removal:

75KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@eivo,
Ok there you go.
It says exactly what you mean, but avoids the (possible) racial inuendo.

Suggest removal:

76kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

I agree with Eivo- I've never been blessed with children (unfortunately for mankind) but, if I had a child going to college- and assuming I could afford it- I wouldn't dream of consigning them to a place like YSU with the criminal activity that goes on around (or on) that campus. What self-respecting parent would? I worry about myself sometimes being on that campus late at night- I'm not currently a student although I matriculated from YSU years ago (when it was a safer place) with a dual-major in Philosophy and Theology- I go there often to visit the Library for mental stimulation- and also to drink beer at the Inner Circle.

As far as my feelings toward the felons who commit these crimes- I pride myself on being an "Equal Opportunity Hater"- I hate "Thugs" of every shape, color, ethnic background or gender. If somebody wants to mug me, or kill me, they are my sworn enemy and I carry a 45 ACP (legal concealed carry permit) that also isn't prejudiced "for" or "against" anybody- "his" job is simply to protect me.

P.S. I've gone a number of times late for plays, movies, etc. to the KSU-Trumbull Campus- and I don't think I ever felt unsafe on that particular Campus- even after dark. And it isn't "racial" because I often saw African-American students (proximity to Warren with a large Minority Community) there. It's just the gut feeling you have about a place- in some places you feel safe- in others you don't.

Oh, by the way, People who play the "Race Card" are really just playing the "Dumb Card" in my humble opinion.

Suggest removal:

77thirtyninedollars(319 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

@southsidedave, there are many ways around that. One should be allowed to remain anonymous if they so wish.
Such as idiots leaving their wireless ap open and unencrypted ;)

Suggest removal:

78lajoci(374 comments)posted 9 months, 1 week ago

So send your kid to Case-Western Reserve -- certainly no "thugs" hanging around University Circle, or nearby East Cleveland, or Hough, just a few blocks west.

Or Columbia -- there's a safe place!

Or OSU, right smack dab in the heart of Columbus, in the sphere of the Short-North Gang.

Or any one of dozens of the other urban institutions of higher learning around this country, which not only survive in their urban settings, but actually thrive, engaged as they are with their cultural, technical, and socio-political surrounddings.

Just saying . . .

Suggest removal:

79kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months ago

Here's an interesting comparison of how language changes (or is debased) according to political necessities (Orwellian double-speak):

THUG: the standard dictionary definition: a tough and violent man, esp a criminal; also, a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims.

THUG: defined by the Urban Dictionary (according to Tupac): a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.

There you have it in a nutshell. If you get mugged by someone, or, worse yet, dispatched into the hereafter by someone- you have your choice, you can be accurate and say: "It was a thug, definition one, "a tough and violent man, a criminal; or you can be "politically correct" and say- definition two- it was "someone going through struggles, has gone through struggles,...." and he didn't mean to do it- society was to blame. No difference for you, the victim, either way, but, it's important to be scrupulously fair about these things:after all, the young man was "going through struggles" and he didn't mean to shoot me.

If we keep moving in this direction- definition one- the truth- won't exist anymore- it'll be labelled "racist" and the dictionaries are going to be burned. All were going to have is Tupac's version. God Help Us All.

Suggest removal:

80UticaShale(854 comments)posted 9 months ago

@Franco, "For real now," The Vindy has be dying for the last few decades, you know it, the owners know it, the masses know it. Now you even have to sell the old iconic historic building. You lost your Business section to the upstart journal not to long ago.
Logic, you tried everything else, point is, that this message board can really rock, if you get the real stakeholders involved, what you miss is that the Vindy still is the lifeblood of the Valley in regards to current events. This message board, if you mandate true debate and accountability, the citizenry will rise like the old "letters to the editor." You have to require true identity from your readership as they now, with new technology engage.
One only has to see my active posting and read how half of it is battling the TROLLS on off topic subjects. Now I am guilty as everyone here is in taking rude shots at people.
Finally, we have free speech in America as longs as we back it up with facts. Also, an accused has the right to face his accusers in America. The Vindy with this message board allows the abuse of both.

Suggest removal:

81dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 9 months ago

LOL, that is funny Utica. You went on a rage last week when your true identity and character was revealed, now you want everyone's identity shown. NICE

Suggest removal:

82eevo(51 comments)posted 9 months ago

The Liar had the IRS create the Flight 370 conspiracy and then ordered the left wing media to cover the made up story 24/7 so they wouldn't cover Bennnnnghaaaaazi. Don't ask questions or you will be audited.

Suggest removal:

83jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months ago

The disapperance of Flight 370 is Bush's fault.

Suggest removal:

84jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months ago

Obama returns from a multi-million dollar 17 day vacation to lecture the US on "income inequality."

Then visits a VA hospital and says "son thank you for your service, but there are lazy folks, on welfare, that need part of your retirement."

Suggest removal:

85jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months ago

.First Lady Michelle Obama, her mother and two daughters have reportedly already outstayed their welcome with some of the staff at a $8,350-per-night presidential suite in Beijing. They arrived on Thursday.

A “well-placed” staffer at the Westin Beijing Chaoyang hotel told the Daily Mail that the Obama women have inconvenienced “pretty much everyone” while the first lady’s mother, Marian Robinson, has been “barking at the staff” since she arrived.

Suggest removal:

86jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months ago

Washington Post story purporting to expose the Koch brothers as behind-the-scenes beneficiaries of the Keystone Pipeline has been exposed as an utterly false propaganda operation, hilariously wrong and politically malicious. Even worse, one of the writers behind the story is married to a political operative in the left wing Koch-demonization machine.

The Washington Post was recently purchased by Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who ought to take a hard look at the reporters and editors who collaborated with the left wing smear machine, and while he is at it, should send a note of thanks to John Hinderaker, the blogger at Powerline, who exposed the rot in his new media operation.

Hinderaker’s work is thorough, grounded in fact, and devastating. I urge you to read the whole thing. Here is a small sample:

...an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin headlined, “The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.” The article was based on a newly-issued two-page report by the far-left International Forum on Globalization. The Post reported:

You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada’s oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn’t the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

Actually, nearly all of the tar sands leaseholders are smaller companies that you haven’t heard of–dozens, if not hundreds of them. Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaseholder

Far from it, as Hinderaker demonstrates. In fact, the report is, in his words “sheer misinformation.”

So how did the Post becomes such a willing collaborator?

Why would the Washington Post embarrass itself by republishing a thoroughly discredited attempt to link the Koch brothers to the Keystone Pipeline? Because that is a Democratic Party talking point, and the Post is a Democratic Party newspaper. But the truth is a little worse than that.

Who is Post reporter Juliet Eilperin? Among other things, she is married to Andrew Light, who writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress is an Obama administration front group headed by John Podesta, who is a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. CAP’s web site, Think Progress, has carried out a years-long vendetta against the Koch brothers that has focused largely on the environment. Ms. Eilperin’s conflict in writing about environmental issues has already been a subject of controversy at the Post. The paper’s ombudsman should examine this latest example of Ms. Eilperin throwing facts to the winds in her eagerness to promote her (and her husband’s) far-left agenda.

Suggest removal:

87DontBanThisDrone(527 comments)posted 9 months ago

People don't use their real names because in a monetary system, truth has consequences.

I think we'll all agree; the Comments section is a large part of the draw to an article. Without it, readership would drop like a deuce. I know I don't read the Trib site nearly as much as I used to. I'm quite certain I'm not the only one.

(-:

Suggest removal:

88jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 9 months ago

Folks,
This is a humorous e-mail but…….
When you read it, realize that it is really the actual truth.
This stuff is on TV cable news every day.
The Democrats actually do support the stated positions.
The Democrats are so far left that they are irretrievable.
Obama, Biden, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Durbin, and all their whackos have all but destroyed our country, our military, our defense budget, our economy, our opportunity for energy independence, our jobs market, big business, our healthcare plans, health insurance companies, our world stature, our borders, our incentives to work, our NSA and the ability to thwart terrorists, our 1st amendment rights, our 4th amendment rights and they have continuously attacked our 2nd amendment rights as well as our entire Constitution. Additionally, they have usurped our system of checks and balances with executive orders and they have managed to erode the wealth and savings of hard working Americans, while allowing our debt to continue to increase and threatening our entire economic system and financial structure, including our power position in the world.

Suggest removal:

89kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months ago

Eivo, I would have told KSU to take his PC Bullsh-t and shove it where there's no Daylight rather than change my choice of words. "Thug"- the real dictionary definition (not Tupac's) suits me nicely and I will stay with it, Thank You:

"THUG: the standard dictionary definition: a tough and violent man, esp a criminal; also, a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims"

Suggest removal:

90kurtw(938 comments)posted 9 months ago

Also, referring to Utica's comment that we should all be identified- I probably would not have made the above statement if I though somebody could find out where I lived and- as a political statement- heaved a brick through my front window- or worse.

Suggest removal:

91kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago

SeriouslyNow:

"You have reason to be concerned about your identity."

Thanks for proving my point! If you want to address controversial issues- especially if your viewpoints are not "politically correct"- then it seems to me that it makes more sense- from a self-preservation point of view- to make your comments anonymously. The world- even dear old Youngstown- is full of homicidal crackpots (all across the ideological spectrum- right to left) who, if you rile them, would be only to happy to send you packing into eternity- or at least bust up your picture window or slash your tires.

I intend to make it as hard for them as possible.

P.S. Talking about crackpots- homicidal or otherwise- some of the worst Nutjobs out there are the Femi-Nazis, the Gay-Rights Weirdo's, and the Environmental Extremists- all Courtesy of the Left Wing- Thank You for That- the Nation is Eternally Grateful (if it survives).

The Right has it's share of Nut-jobs, too- Snake Handlers, Hitler Worshipers, White Supremacists, Gun Hoarding Survivalists, etc- but nobody with a brain takes them seriously anymore. They're on the same level of credibility as the Flat Earth Society. But the lefto delusions are current- stuff of the Main Stream Media- and if the polls are correct- half the country believes them. Now That's Serious.

Suggest removal:

92excel(318 comments)posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago

The armed despots of Youngstown would revel to spread their wings and fly to the dwellings of their fixations. In history those who toiled for prosperity were targeted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristall...

Suggest removal:

93dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

the root cause of the decline of this country is GREED. Greed by politicians who have sold the American people out, in favor of lining their pockets from big business. End of story.

Suggest removal:

94dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Okay genius, your statement is somewhat true. But why do you think that politicians want votes to be a career politician? Is is because they are so interested in being public servants, or is it for all of the money they get while they hold the position? And I am not talking about their measly gov salaries.

Suggest removal:

9576Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Why is it that quid pro quo is forbidden in private industry but when it comes to our elected officials is called lobbying?

Suggest removal:

96dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree, the two go hand in hand. Give away crap (both parties), get votes, stay in office, get lots of money from big business/lobbyist/campaign contributions, to make laws that favor those who give them the money (both parties).

Suggest removal:

97DACOUNTRYBOY(278 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

How about that New Jersey Governor who dumped his wife in favor of a guy? No bribe corrupted him.

--------------------------------------------------------
Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who resigned from office in 2004 amid gay sex scandal, says his life is 'wonderful, honest, authentic' now.
McGreevey is the subject of Alexandra Pelosi's new HBO documentary 'Fall to Grace.' He's in a relationship with Mark O'Donnell and works as a spiritual adviser at the Integrity House rehab center in Kearny, N.J.

Suggest removal:

98dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

@ Seriously, I'm sure if you look back at eivo's posts, he surely told Kurt what an idiot statement that was and that Kurt was declaring a war on women.
And just because Kurt made those statements about women and you don't agree with him, now you are going to unfairly label him a sexist.
(disclaimer- the comments above are made with sarcasm)

Suggest removal:

99dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

They started the war on Christmas too I suppose.

Suggest removal:

100DACOUNTRYBOY(278 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

The liberals are succeeding in liberating the masses from the bonds of morality. They start with destroying babies lives in the womb and go beyond. Every woman was a baby in the womb at one time.

Suggest removal:

101southsidedave(4840 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

What an absolute waste of time by a handful of "experts"...terrific

Suggest removal:

102Truth4Life(33 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Funny how the delusional right wingers accuse liberals of causing abortion when Roe was decided by a Republican majority. The Casey decision affirmed Roe and was decided by a hard core right wing Supreme Court.

It should also be noted that prior to the ACA enactment 45,000 Americans used to die every year due to lack of health care insurance. This holocaust was caused by right wing Republicans with a few DINOcrats.

Therefore, it is the pro death wrong ... oops, the right wing that has caused these deaths.

Suggest removal:

10376Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Truth4Life: How many Americans die with health insurance? Poor eating habits, lack of exercise and smoking are to blame for more deaths than lack of health care.

Uninsured Americans are not turned away from hospitals for health care and the poor are eligible for Medicaid. According to the news, young people are not signing up for Obamacare, therefore going without insurance. Accidents are the number cause of death for young people. If one of them dies in a car accident does that point to being uninsured is to blame for their death?

Suggest removal:

104dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Funny how people die with insurance, but not one has died from not having it. Hard to believe that there isn't one. Any source on that?

Suggest removal:

105Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

@76,

ALL americans with health insurance will die.
ALL americans without health insurance will die.

Poor health care including poor attention to healthly eating, poor attention to healthy exercise, poor attention to impact of inhalation of toxins and poor attention to consumption of contaminated water will influence the manner and timing of an american's death.

Health insurance, per se, does not cause morbidity.

However, the absence of health insurance, tends to influence americans decisions about when to seek professional health care. Delay in getting care does contribute to morbidity.

Suggest removal:

106dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

@Cosmo
it is nice to hear some common sense every now and then. Thank you.

Suggest removal:

10776Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Cosmo19: There are many reasons Americans delay seeking health care. Some of which involve money (high deductibles, access, cash flow) and some involve simply ignoring your health and it affects people who have insurance and people who don't have insurance. Delays can affect mortality but to say that being uninsured is a cause is a stretch. As I pointed out in an earlier post, there are safety nets when you are uninsured. .

Last year, authors of an Oregon study comparing Medicaid to uninsured state that Medicaid "generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes".

Suggest removal:

108Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Oregon study: In May 2013, the group of researchers found that having Medicaid "generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes" though "it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."

Suggest removal:

10976Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

How many Americans die with Medicaid?

Suggest removal:

110dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Well if people die having medical insurance, then I guess that there is no need for you to have any insurance at all. Nobody should then, according to your reason. I mean screw it, we are going to die anyway, so what's the point?

Suggest removal:

111Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

eivo,
Exactly the opposite of what ?

Do you think there is some proof that delay in getting health care contributes to longevity?

Do you think there is some proof that americans don't consider health care insurance when deciding when they should seek professional health care?

Suggest removal:

11276Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

We may not know whether not having insurance causes death but two things in life are for sure. death and taxes. And we're about to get taxed to death.

Suggest removal:

113dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Well now since the Supreme Court has ruled that a Campaign contributor can contribute a hell of a lot more money to a candidate, Republicans will take full advantage of it, gain control of everything, repeal Obamacare, rid us citizens of all taxes, and you can live happily ever after in la la land where it will all be perfect.

Suggest removal:

114Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

@76Ytown,

you wrote: "We may not know whether not having insurance causes death ...."

Really? That is a question in your mind ?

I've yet to hear of any death certificate that lists "insurance" as a cause.

You are just joshing us...... or are you?

Suggest removal:

11576Ytown(1293 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Cosmos19: That goes back to comment #150 by Truth4Life "45,000 Americans used to die every year due to lack of health care insurance" Yes, it's all tongue-in-cheek.

Suggest removal:

116kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

It was kurtw who said " the Unites States started it's long road to National Decline with Female Suffrage in 1918. It's sad but true. Almost all of our problems can be directly traced to that regrettable fact."

DISCLAIMER: (the one I should have made originally): Above is satire meant to draw attention to a point I was trying to make, but got posted before I was able to make it. Idea of me trying to "make a war" on women is ridiculous- First of all, I wouldn't have a Ghost's Chance of winning- I'm not smart enough- and second of all, some of my best friends- including family members- are women and- most fundamental of all- my Mother is a Woman- and without her past assistance I wouldn't have been able to write this. So, I would say, given all that- woman are pretty much indispensable- in my life and everybody Else's- they may be even more important than us men. Embryologists tell us that females are the "primary" (first) sex- all embryos start out female and then- at some stage- the Y chromosome kicks in pushing the fetus in a male direction with testosterone. The Bottom Line: according to the latest research women are the "default" primary sex- men are just an accessory needed as "sperm carriers".

And that's the reason for "misogyny"- i.e., the irrational fear and hatred of women- in a nutshell. Women haters (in our Culture- the Islamic's are in a different category- almost a different Universe) are men who got an under dose of testosterone in the womb- their sense of masculinity is shaky- hence women- and homosexuals- are threatening to them. That explains it in a nutshell. (If they had gotten just a little less testosterone, they'd have turned out gay- instead of hating women, they would have identified with them. Such is Life. Reminds me of the of the Woody Allen Joke that God, in addition to liking to play "Hide and Seek" is also a practical Joker.)

The point I wanted to make in my post was based on a statement of Ann Coulter's- the Conservative Commentator: Ann said, also, like me, satirically, that: "If women couldn't vote- Democrats would never win another election!". True, for the most part and her reason for saying it (as in my statement) was to draw attention to that evil fact- the overwhelming pro-democrat vote of most- especially younger- women. In her view- and I agree- that's not healthy. Women, like all voters (African- americans and most people in the Mahoning Valley) shouldn't be that "easy"- if you give your vote away- you get taken for granted.

Suggest removal:

117SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok, I get it now.
Whenever kurtw, evio or 76 posts, it's really sarcasm, or
satire or tongue-in-cheek joking, not intended to be taken seriously or truthful.

Suggest removal:

118kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, OK, I Just said it- it was satire. Do you really think I'm dumb enough that I would make that kind of statement and expect it to be taken literally? I should have put some kind of disclaimer in rather than let it stand as it is. I was trying to make the point that women- like most African-Americans and most voters in the Mahoning Valley- are being gullible in surrendering themselves into the arms of a "Lover"- the Democrat Machine- instead of looking around to see who else might be out there. Women- above all- should remember that if you give in too easily- you get taken for granted and once your "lover" the slick politician (Willy and Barack?)- has gotten from you what they want- you end up being discarded.

No one is saying women shouldn't vote mostly for Liberals- but they should look at the other point of view as well: voting 80-90 per cent for one side or the other is not a good thing. It means you get taken for granted.

Suggest removal:

119kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Furthermore, talking about which side- Conservatives or Liberals- does more to advance "the cause of women". Part of it has to do with good role models. Tune in to Fox News every night. Look at their anchors and commentators- strong, intelligent, women- Greta van Susteran, Megan Kelly, Monica Crowley, Michelle Malkin, Kirsten Powers (a Liberal Democrat), Lies Wiehl, Dana Perino- and that's just a partial list- I'd run out of time if I tried to list them all- and the point is these are all- intelligent and for the most part conservative women who, even though most of them are pretty good looking, have made it on their accomplishments and not their looks (although that doesn't hurt) and, as such, I would say they're a pretty good role model for the little girls out there who may be watching- a lot better than what the Lib-dominated Hollywood Dream Machine spins out.

Suggest removal:

120dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

lol..... somebody just tried to back track and did a poor job of doing so. Kurt tried pulling a Mitt by saying he had a whole binder of women he thought were intelligent (oh, and sexy too).

Suggest removal:

121SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

kurtw is a sexist.
Sexists are the leaders in the war against women; it is the reason they exist.

Suggest removal:

122dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

No he isn't, he loves his mom and sexy news hosts.

Suggest removal:

123dontbeafool(1095 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

bull, bull, and more bull. Don't forget about the 3 month long, annual, Fox News campaign on Christmas too. Even though conservatives are the ones who want the stores to be open 24/7 during these major holidays.

Suggest removal:

124jojuggie(1476 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

Whew - I never heard that one before: "conservatives are the ones who want the stores to be open 24/7 during these major holidays."

Where did you come up with that one?

Suggest removal:

125kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

"Embryologists tell us that females are the "primary" (first) sex- all embryos start out female and then- at some stage- the Y chromosome kicks in pushing the fetus in a male direction with testosterone. The Bottom Line: according to the latest research women are the "default" primary sex- men are just an accessory needed as "sperm carriers".

"And that's the reason for "misogyny"- i.e., the irrational fear and hatred of women- in a nutshell. Women haters (in our Culture- the Islamic's are in a different category- almost a different Universe) are men who got an under dose of testosterone in the womb- their sense of masculinity is shaky- hence women- and homosexuals- are threatening to them. That explains it in a nutshell. (If they had gotten just a little less testosterone, they'd have turned out gay- instead of hating women, they would have identified with them. Such is Life. Reminds me of the of the Woody Allen Joke that God, in addition to liking to play "Hide and Seek" is also a practical Joker"-

If I hated or feared women I wouldn't have gone on record with that statement. I would have tried to ignore or repress it- because it is the truth: women are the "primary" first sex. But I did say it and it's something I have to live with- like gravity. Now, I can admit to being a "Sexist"- whatever that fuzzy term actually means (can't women also be "sexists? Proclaiming the superiority of women over men- feminists do that all the time- but nobody call them "sexist") but I am not a "misogynist". There's a huge, huge, difference between the two. A misogynist is someone who "hates and fears women". A "sexist" it seems to me is someone who takes pride in their own gender- whether male or female. Radical Feminist's (Femi-nazi's I like to call them) have tricked us into believing that somehow anybody, any male with a strong sense of gender identity- masculinity- a "mans man" as they used to say- is somehow "bad"- equivalent to a racist. Men, in the politically correct era, are supposed to be "androgynous" ( closer to women- which may be one of the reasons liberal NPR seems to prefer male announcers with squeaky (quasi-female) high-pitched voices- Guy Roze, for instance ). I reject that notion. I think, male-female differentiation- psychological as well as physical- is large genetic- beyond PC control- which is why I made that remark about the Swiss still having intact Gonads. Of course that may have already changed- Swiss Men may have been psychologically "de-balled" by now. Radical Feminism is a world-wide phenomenon- like a fungus spread by container ships - and it isn't going to be stopped by a few mountains. The only thing we men- worldwide- can do is "gird our loins" and recognize the danger.

Suggest removal:

126SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months ago

Assign whatever label to yourself that you like, the simple fact remains that you say that the decline of the United States began with women being given the right to vote.

It is crystal clear that you do not believe that women should be allowed to vote.

So, in your mind, is it a biologic or intellectual deficiency that renders women unsuitable to vote?

Suggest removal:

127SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months ago

Comment was in response to kurtw's defense of himself.

You should have been able to figure that one out without help.

Suggest removal:

128kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months ago

shedevil- "So, in your mind, is it a biologic or intellectual deficiency that renders women unsuitable to vote?"

Neither. Women as a group are just as fit or entitled to vote as men. The whole thing- my statement- was satire- maybe I was clumsy about it, but that was my intent. I got the idea from a statement of Ann Coulter's: "If women couldn't vote, Democrats wouldn't get elected!" Now you can't accuse Ann Coulter of being a woman hater, nor the conservative- and highly accomplished women- who appear nightly on Fox News. What she opposed was the Liberal Democrat Machine that takes women voters for granted- as they do African Americans- and the majority of voters in Mahoning County. Women ought to remember what their mother's taught them and play "hard to get"- make them work for the vote (also, create your own security with a good education and job skills- don't depend on a man- or the government - "Sugar Daddy" Uncle Sam?- to support you. Unfortunately, traditionally, most women have been taught to think that way- "Find a good Husband and You'll be set for Life", etc. and I don't think that's a good approach. In that sense, I agree with Feminist's.)

Besides, I think I realize that in most areas that really count- brains, sensitivity, aesthetic sense- women are superior to men. I started to notice that in grade school when all the little girls seemed to do better- especially in English- that all the little boys my age. Women really are the primary "first" sex as I stated in my first post- and that's the problem. Men instinctively know that and it bothers some of them- so they react with the only weapons at their disposal- they try to bully women with their superior physical strength and aggressiveness (isn't that what radical Islam is all about- the radical suppression of women by collective force?).

Suggest removal:

129SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months ago

Kurtw,
Really bulls!!t.
Your post was lamenting the 'feminization' of US culture as contrasted with the Swiss with regards to firearms possession.

So when you can't defend a extremist statement you try to explain it away as "satire"?

If you said it was just more of your B&B, that would be honest.

Suggest removal:

130kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months ago

Look, shedevil, reread my last comment- especially the 2nd paragraph- regardless of what I may have said in the past that comment is not B&B- it is my sincere belief. It's something I've felt instinctively- even when I made that comment about Swiss Gun Ownership- and, by the way, the largest percentage growth in Concealed Carry Permit Holders the last few years has been which Demographic? It's been women. And that's something I applaud. We all should have the capacity to defend ourselves and, I think, if more females knew how to handle firearms it would mean fewer of them ending up in shelters for battered women. And, related to that, more abusing husband's and boyfriend's might end up in the morgue- might not be such a bad thing- there's such a thing as asking for it.

Suggest removal:

131kurtw(938 comments)posted 8 months ago

And furthermore, paraphrasing Richard Nixon: " I Am Not A Sexist!". Whenever I attend family functions- like tomorrows big Easter Spread- after dinner when all the dishes are stacked up ready to be washed (or at least loaded into the Dish washer) I don't just troop into the family room to watch sports like the other men of the family. It has long been my custom to offer to help with the dishes. Of course, I'm normally refused because I'm extremely clumsy and generally end up breaking things- but- the point is- Doesn't That Tell You Something About My Character?

P.S. Happy Easter One And All- Of Both Genders- Male, Female, and all possible Permutations and Combinations Thereof!

Suggest removal:

132SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months ago

Something about your character.....

When you are called out on your anti-female remark: You retreat saying it was all satire or just joking around.

I suggested an easy way out, just be honest and admit that your statement was another example of your bulls**t and blather. But you insist that "that comment was NOT B&B"

If readers can't tell when you are serious and when you are being scarcastic, satiristic, or just joking...... just when do you think that you should be taken seriously?

Suggest removal:

133kurtw(938 comments)posted 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Shedevil, You make a good point. I guess that's another way of saying I'm conflicted. I like writing things that are satiric and humorous because it's a way of expressing that I'm confused about things- but, if you want to write, maybe being confused, or uncertain, isn't so bad. Then when you do sit down to write- sometimes out of that confusion something worthwhile emerges. Or maybe not..

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes