The latest of these entries takes as its starting point a verbatim quote of a comment I made on the Nemakset forum a week ago; the other is an attack on a recent posting on Middleboro Review, presumably made to support an individual who is not a town resident, but whose actions have caused much damage and have done little to further rational discussion of the casino, its benefits, and impacts.
I’ll start with the most recent posting. First of all, shame on me for the comment I made on Nemasket Net. I am deeply sorry that I provided you with ammunition that you have chosen to use to again set people against one another and inflame passions. Shame on me also, for not considering that my comments could make it to the web at large, although it is a breach of netiquette to post material from a private forum on a publicly accessible webpage, as it is a breach of netiquette to publicly post private e-mail correspondence. However, I ask you, how does posting a comment from a members-only forum on your blog page, and then challenging readers to attack you for doing so, “heighten and further” discussion of issues important to the town?
Likewise, how does implicitly goading an individual who has engaged in abusive and destructive behavior on the internet into seeking a legal remedy against Middleboro Review further the cause of “cooperation between opponents and proponents” to ensure that we “work together to force the state to address the money issues within the region”? It seems to me the tactics you have engaged in today have the opposite effect of setting us against one another when we need to work together on hundreds of issues, beyond the casino. If my worst case is that the casino is coming and we must mitigate it; your worst case is that the casino is not coming and we must prepare for it. The postings on Coffee Shop Talk today will not help that process
You say
You bet it does, it sounds exactly like the behavior the individual that you defend has engaged in all this past year, an individual whose business sponsors your radio program, and whose website is still a link on your blog page. Because that individual cannot see beyond the potential financial benefit (to his business) of the proposed casino, he feels compelled to attack, viciously and by any means at his disposal, any who disagree with him.Engage someone personally on the internet. Blog about
them to the point of damaging their reputation and business,
and have that blog linked by several other sites at the
same time, then demand from the target of your blogging
something of value in order for you to stop the blogging and
take down the offensive material you posted in the first place?
Sound familiar? Sound like coercion?
However, the number of those of us who disagree with him (and with you) that a casino is good for Middleboro or for the region, or that the tribal government of the Mashpee Wampanoags can be trusted to act openly and in good faith with the Town of Middleboro when they do not do so with their own members--their continued shunning of a respected elder despite an overwhelming majority vote of the members of the tribe to reinstate that elder is evidence to me that they are not to be trusted to deal openly and fairly with us--is numerous, and is growing all the time.
As to the matter of links, I link to your blog on my page, and I am not planning on taking that link down at any time in the future. I like to pay attention to what is being said on the opposite side of the issue, I find it makes for more interesting and profitable discussions. It is a shame that you (apparently) do not feel the same.
5 comments:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with one's self.
A person with narcissistic personality disorder:
Reacts to criticism with feelings or rage, shame, or humiliation
Takes advantage of others to achieve own goals
Has feelings of self-importance
Exaggerates achievements and talents
Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
Requires constant attention and admiration
Lacks empathy
Sound like anyone we know?
We hope to meet you in ou travels. We have read and circulated your blog and consider it a well reasoned approach knowing your proximity to the mega-monster.
Your response to the unnecessary attack is gracious and reflects your generosity of spirit that is undeserved by the recipient.
That an elected official should defend the unnamed individual is unconscionable. That a Middleborough elected official should defend an out of town business owner who has posted accusations for which he should be prosecuted is breathtaking.
The elected official needs to Get A Grip on himself and his position.
Although I was at one time a supporter, I'm thinking Recall is appropriate to rid the town of this pestilence!
Let's talk about Net etiquette for a moment...since I may have violated it. I have been told that the Internet is the "Wild West," and that I should not expect any salvation in my demands for openness and the ability to face one's accuser. In fact, it seems that to demand the identity of persons placing nasty posts is tantamount to shredding the Constitution..so I am told.
Some context. In response to my blog discussion about another poster's Third Reich comment in a private forum, it was written IN PART on www.coffeenot.com that:
"I am deeply sorry that I provided you with ammunition that you have chosen to use to again set people against one another and inflame passions. Shame on me also, for not considering that my comments could make it to the web at large, although it is a breach of netiquette to post material from a private forum on a publicly accessible webpage, as it is a breach of netiquette to publicly post private e-mail correspondence. However, I ask you, how does posting a comment from a members-only forum on your blog page, and then challenging readers to attack you for doing so, “heighten and further” discussion of issues important to the town?"
Keep your netiquette and hold it close, because if I had made that post on any forum or in any e-mail, it would have been posted by the opposition in every possible place. If you believe that Internet etiquette would have saved me, please reconsider your position.
I did not challenge anyone to attack me. Indeed, I have become accoustomed to it and have come to expect it from those who have delighted in doing so, because, as one of you has already stated (a director of CFO), I make it so easy, and they believe it irritates me. There is a rationale that breeds trust and open discourse--not. I have been attacked regardless of whether I make any postings and even when I am not involved in the issue, which certainly gives me a bit of freedom. Do you see no fault in yourselves? Is everything as black and white as you profess?
As to providing ammunition, ammunition for what? The comment made was not a terrible comment, and as I said, it was an academic analogy. I am Jewish (I didn't just live in a Jewish neighborhood), and a member of the BOS and a member of Town Meeting. Do I really think you were saying that I am tantamount to being a member of the Third Reich? I guess if I were over-sensitive and looking for a way to attack you, I could say that your comment was anti-semitic and offensive. However, I believe better. By the way, has MR reported you to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League yet? I think not. Has she called any persons with whom you have business relations yet to indicate that you are somehow an anti-semite? Imagine that, an antisemitic jew.
Your comment seemed to be your frustration with the proposed resort and other failings of the municipal government. However, realize that much rage has been personally directed at me and my family by people that you support. I am treated as if I were some sort of a Svengali that hypnotized an entire BOS, Town Meeting and many others to support this project. I only wish that I had the immense influence and power that opponents have ascribed to me in making me the focus of often cruel discourse. I seek no sympathy (I chose to run for election and I made my choices), I only raised this issue to show that it is not really the message that people are attacking, it is the medium and the messenger. Look at the fact that you made the post and I am being criticized for discussing it--and the etiquette issue is simply a red-herring and you know it.
As to openness of discussion and debate--that takes mutual respect and the ability to not only see the faults of your prey, but yourself. I will never be able to convince a true believer (of which there are few), but I will continue to have open discourse with anyone wishing to do so on the level of respectful disagreement. As a Selectman, regardless of the opposition and what it has said or done, I will continue to make inroads to provide more access and transparency to Town Government. It is why I originally ran, and I now may be in a position to make it happen. The casino has NOTHING to do with this goal, and it must be accomplished whether the casino comes or not. I am perfectly able to separate my feelings here from my charge as Selectman.
As to the coercion issue, you call it what you want, since this is a matter of opinion (until such time as it is adjudicated through the long and arduous process of litigation). But logically--assuming that your allegations are true that the businessman was wrong--are those people who have done wrong undeserving of protection of the law, or in your world, once you have opined that someone is bad, are they subject to the whim of any pack of predators who wish to tear them apart by potentially illegal means. Are you actually advocating that allegedly bad people are not protected by the law.
By the way, just look at the posts on this blog and ask yourself--does this promote open discourse and trust.
AMB-
No one I know is so ignorant of civil rights and everyone's equal right to protection under the law as you suggest. The problem with the businessman in question is not "once judged always guilty". He has demonstrated a history of repeatedly threatening, harassing, and defaming individuals in personal emails and on a publicly read website (his Front Page). His MO has been a continued cycle of attack, repent, retreat ........ attack, repent, retreat ad infinitum. Less than two months ago YOU negotiated a peace agreement between the businessman in question and a blogger well known to the community. May I refresh your memory that within a week and a half of agreeing to the terms of YOUR negotiation, this businessman broke his promises and returned to his objectionable behavior?
The pursuit of any possible litigation by this businessman against Middleboro Review lacks a solid foundation because she simply printed verbatim what he posted on his website. HE chose to link the name of his business to that site. He initially established that connection which subsequently turned up in Google searches and cached references. He could and should have chosen to offer his ill-considered opinions on an independent website not connected to his business. Therefore it could be easily argued that he must assume responsibility for any negative impacts or losses to his business' name or logo. Sorry, he has a weak case at best and you know it.
All offensive material has been removed from both the originating site and the blog which reprinted it. It would seem to be in everyone's best interest to let go of this. Please consider recusing yourself from this specific issue. Your choice.
To AMB-
Gee, thanks. I see that as a result of your encouragement, the out of town miscreant is at it again in full force this morning. You have set a very poor example for this town, your profession, and as a man. And you have the nerve to bring G_d, free will, and conscience into all this? Your lack of responsibility defines your leadership style.
Post a Comment