« A Tale of the City | Main | Veterans Day »
Re2: Getting out the Word
I think we should get the word out.
When I first began attending GCCC meetings in Mt. Hope many people told me that they were afraid to speak up at the open community meetings that were held at that time because criminals and drug dealers attended the meetings to see who was saying what, and people were afraid of recriminations if they spoke up. People also told me that they were afraid to call the police because the police would tell the criminals, who was calling about them, and that the police were in cahoots with the criminals and drug dealers. I thought at that time that that was a bunch of BULLSHIT. I still think so today. There may have been a time, where, maybe, once, it happened, but this notion has since taken on the aura of “Urban Myth” and Mt. Hope needs no urban myths at this point in its development. There is also an element of neighborhood paranoia at work in these myths.
In her October 27th post, Jen advocates not publicizing the website widely in Mt. Hope via posters, handouts, and fliers, because she fears recriminations from criminals who may read the blog if they knew about the site.
Jen writes, “A major focus of this blog is highlighting the crime that goes on here in Mt Hope, whether we like it or not, and I would not feel comfortable posting in the manner that I do now if I knew there was a potential for those who are committing the crimes to be reading it.”
I find several logical problems with this argument and one of them is the clause “…, whether we like it or not, . . .” in reference to the blog “. . . highlighting the crime that goes on here in Mt. Hope, . . .”. I suppose that “, whether we like it or not, ” refers to the fact that the blog highlights Mt. Hope crime, rather than that there is substantial crime in Mt. Hope.
Are we to take it that Jen does not like the blog highlighting the crime in Mt. Hope? Perhaps she is one who believes that people who post to the blog should only post positive things about the neighborhood. That is another argument altogether, and again, I reiterate, that if more people participated in submitting entries to the blog, positive things, like reviews, news, opinions, etc., as I have often called for, it would not seem like the blog was slanted towards highlighting crime.
Isn’t the alleged, percieved problem, that of the blog's slant toward crime, grounded in the fact that not enough people participate in submitting entries to the blog: in other words, the problem lies not in the content submitted by the people who do take the time to contribute to the blog, but by the lack of contributions by people who wish to highlight other aspects of the community. Surely Jen is not asking me and others who contribute to censor ourselves and post only the type of entries she approves.
The other logical problem I have with Jen’s statement is that there should be no potential for recriminations by criminals for anything anyone posts. There is no reason to identify yourself or your location when posting about crime. That is why we have a Crime Watch.
For instance, look at the post Pleasant Street Drug Dealing on October 27th, the only name on that post is mine, yet it identifies several addresses on Pleasant Street where alleged drug dealing is ongoing. The member reporting that activity contacted me through the Crime Watch and passed me the information which I in turn passed on to the police and posted on the website.
No recriminations yet. (knock on wood.) ( ;>)
Jen also writes, “Unless we are going to lift the policy on posting anonymously,. . .”
And I must remind everyone that there is no policy on posting anonymously, just a request I made because of a few cowardly people who began using the blog to snipe without having the courage to state their names (i.e. the July 7th post, Pro Jo Editorials = Two of a Kind -- Does Mayor Get It? : the comments made under that post), using names like Kangroo Communique, et al.
I suggested that people not write/post anything on the blog that they would not say aloud to another person’s face -- write nothing that they would not sign their name to -- and, I think that is a good policy.
It has always been understood that anyone requesting anonymity for safety’s sake would, of course, have that request honored, and I can cite several examples where it was honored and several where my judgment dictated that anonymity was in order despite it not being requested.
I reject the "anonymity" argument out of hand. Anyone who thinks they have a reason for anonymity has needed only to request it.
Another point I wish to make is that I know of no incidents of retaliation by criminals for anything posted on the blog, and since I post most often and have often posted my name, address, phone number, and e-mail address, I guess that I would be the one most likely to be retaliated against. I’m not worried about it.
Both the Blog and the Crime Watch are designed, partly, to function as a deterrent to crime and aberrant behavior by letting the criminal element know that they are being observed, watched, and reported on and that there are honest citizens participating on every block .
To keep the Crime Watch and the Blog secret partly defeats their purpose.
I don’t like to live in fear, and I believe a judicious person can proceed in using the Crime Watch and the Blog the way they were meant to be used and not fear recriminations.
I think we should widely publicize both the Crime Watch and the Blog on every street in Mt. Hope using every means available.
Get the word out, let the criminals live in fear, not the honest citizens.
John Twomey
Write your blog entry here: BlogEntry
Posted at November 9, 2005 08:43 PM
Nice try! I’ve explained this concept before, and I’ll patiently explain it again: as web-blog moderator and site webmaster, this website will never devolve into a forum for sniping, bickering, or for personal attacks. Use the blog to argue issues and make substantive contributions, not for bickering with other users.
If anyone has a personal problem with me or with my blog contributions, I offer them a simple solution that will allow them the opportunity to address their issues right to my face. Anyone who wishes to do so, call me at 401-640-8077 and set up an appointment to speak to me face to face, one on one, and I’ll be glad to discuss your issues with you: that way you can tell me whatever you wish to tell me face to face and in person. The website is for debating neighborhood and political issues, not personal issues.
The only “personal attack” that occurred here was Jen’s attempt at a “personal attack” or a character assassination, by accusing me of engaging in an unfounded “personal attack” on her simply because I disagreed with her opinion on how to publicize the website.
Jen, in her post of Oct. 27th , disagreed with Peter, in his post of Oct. 26th, where Peter advocated publicizing the website by putting out fliers and posters. Yet Peter gave no indication that he viewed Jen’s disagreement with him as a “personal attack”. I suspect he viewed her post as a simple difference of opinion. At any rate, he did not accuse her of a “personal attack” simply because she disagreed with his idea.
Somehow, Jen, you viewed my disagreeing with your opinion as a “personal attack”.
Refute my argument on the issue in question point by point, but if you have personal issues with me, you could simply call me up or e-mail me: it’s not like we don’t have direct access to each other. Yet you chose to air your anger with me for disagreeing with you, on the website, personally, instead of disputing my argument on the issues. You are a valued member of GCCC and a valued contributor to the blog. I view your contributions to the blog as positive, thoughtful and some, exquisite, and you are welcome to continue to contribute in that vein. I would never attack you. You badly misinterpreted my post.
I feel your accusation too petty and laughable to dignify with a lengthy response, but despite how I feel, as a courtesy to you, I will make an attempt.
You were seemingly offended by my parsing of your sentence “A major focus of this blog is highlighting the crime that goes on here in Mt Hope, whether we like it or not, . .”.
I took that statement to mean that you did not like the blog highlighting crime in Mt. Hope. I think that my interpretation of your sentence was clear in my writing. If you meant something different than that, and I missed it, you should simply explain how you wish that sentence to be understood.
And you seem to have misinterpreted my sentence, “Surely Jen is not asking me and others who contribute to censor ourselves and post only the type of entries she approves.”
That sentence is what is called a “rhetorical question”, and as such it requires no answer: it means: no, Jen does not wish people to censor their posts.
I raised many valid points in my long, detailed post, arguments on the issues, that could have been debated in detail on their merits. Yet you fixated on a small fraction of what I wrote and misinterpreted it in a personal way. You got angry and, now I’m coping with anger.
I understand that you are angry with me for disagreeing with you in a public forum. It is difficult. People are going to disagree with each other and express themselves in their own personal style. This is not High Tea at the Ladies Auxiliary. Some people express themselves passionately. I express myself in a robust, masculine, aggressive style of prose that reflects how passionate I am about the issues affecting Mt. Hope. Maybe it’s time for some people to toughen up and develop thicker skins and give as good as they get, all the while, sticking to the issues.
This airing of personal issues, dirty laundry, these accusations, I find demeaning to you and counter-productive to our common goal.
Let’s agree on this: many larger issues exist in Mt. Hope for people to focus their energy on and there are opportunities to make positive contributions, rather than petty bickering.
I know my contributions to the community have been small and insignificant, especially compared to what you and others have been doing, yet I feel that I still have some insight into what makes for effective community action, and I still intend to do my part even after leaving the GCCC organization.
Call me if you wish to discuss this further.
Posted by: John at November 14, 2005 11:03 AM
I noticed that many people get angry when someone disagrees with them, especially publicly, and some people are so sensitive that they perceive this as a personal attack. As someone who grew up in a totalitarian country, where people are not allowed to have an opinion, and even worse then that, express an opinion, I tremendously value the freedom of speech and the right to express one’s personal view guaranteed by our constitution. Sure, people disagree, that is called a free dialogue, and that is what fuels a discussion. I think that if we ever want to improve this neighborhood, an open discussion about the ways to accomplish our goal will be beneficial to everybody.
Mt. Hopians are a very diverse bunch. It is only natural to disagree sometimes: we all have different experiences that we are bringing to the table, but we can respectfully disagree and argue about things, that we feel strongly about. The worst thing we can do to ourselves is to be socially passive, there is too much of it already
Posted by: Irene at November 10, 2005 08:19 PM
That anyone could infer from my post, politely offering a different opinion, that I am "asking me and others who contribute to censor ourselves and post only the type of entries she approves" is simply ludicrous. I have posted on a wide array of topics, from a suspected rape and break-ins to the Red Sox and feral cats. The tone and timing of this post suggests a personal attack disguised as discourse.
Jen
Posted by: Jen at November 10, 2005 09:59 AM