Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Colour me biased":
I have to say I used to enjoy this blog, but lately it is so very one sided
it seems a bit contrived ...
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 26 February 2014 08:29
*****************
Ouch,,,,that stings.
No Good Morning
Not as much as an Ow's yer Father
or Bob's yer Uncle.
Not much of anything
Just straight for the jugular
No finesse
No imagination
No rapier point
No word skill or good will
Just a heaping ,steaming pile of nasty
And of course,,,no name
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
No one contrives Evelyn
The blog seems to always contain the unvarnished truth. Sometimes it can be a bitter pill. Take for example those who are supporters of the Mayor and see him give the green light to what must be the most expensive garage known to man. Now they have a decision to make - can they go on supporting this madness?
Some will have to do a lot of thinking and all because of this nasty blog where facts are reported.
The commentator could have have dressed up the mayor's decision with some political spin - only 20 M and change, will be built with free money, Town sure to get an award from the centre of excellence, Mayor makes the tough decisions, Mayor and Deputy stand firm on the tough decisions, Mayor carries through with decision from the open house etc. etc.
I must confess, I did not feel after reading the post.
Whoa! That's a bit of an overreaction, Cllr Buck. People might think that 08:29's relatively innocuous comment struck a nerve.
11:54, "unvarnished truth" and "where facts are reported"?! Really?
This blog mainly consists of the opinions of one person and her perspective on the issues facing Town Council. Which, fair dues to Cllr Buck, is what is expected from this blog.
The blog posts are certainly 'varnished' by the author's admitted biases. These opinion pieces, for the most part, are subsequently buttressed by the comments of a few like-minded people. Again, par for the course.
But claiming these op/ed-like entries are 'the truth' or 'the facts' is ridiculous. What it is is a way of justifying one's sharing the expressed opinion. It bolsters the belief that one must be correct in agreeing with the post because, after all, it is truthful and factual.
Nuance is lost in the simplistic righteousness of the "true believer."
13:01 What on earth is a ' true believer ' ?
You would have to include me if that means someone who enjoys the activities of this blog. But to suggest that everyone here thinks the same way or even votes the same way is sheer idiocy.
Ev - I am surprised that you of all people would take offence to someone posting without a "name". This entire blog is based on people posting anonymously - you can't have it both ways ...if it suits you it's ok, but if it doesn't than you are affronted????
Affronted?? You don't know Evelyn.
As someone who has always had a strong opinion about anonymous contribution, I'll chime in with my thoughts. The 8:29 commenter, anonymous as they remain, indicates that their enjoyment of this blog has diminished as a result of what they view as "one-sided" and "contrived" content. Some follow up comments seemed to agree, while others took exception. A friend and excellent contributor, Ka-Non, asked how the commenter could possibly mean "contrived", and then goes on to state he believes this blog to be neither "neutral" nor "objective". If in fact this blog is neither neutral nor objective, then I would argue that this description may very well fit the definition of "contrived". Now, not for one second do I believe Ev makes a deliberate attempt to skew the debate, but as I've stated before, a blog that allows the inclusion of anonymous comments cannot ever be viewed as a forum for balanced commentary. Tim the Enchanter, another smart and thoughtful contributor, asks if 8:29 feels that some comments are fake, perhaps submitted by only one or two people. Therein lies the conundrum; how can we know they're not? They're anonymous, and by their nature, we have no idea who's contributing. One or two people can absolutely skew the debate via multiple contributions, and as such, create deliberately contrived content. The use of a registered pseudonym goes partway, as at least we know that when Ka-Non or Tim contributes, it’s always from that same individual. But there’s no way we’ll ever know if 16:47 isn’t also 20:06, and also 3:14, and also 11:31, and also 21:52…
Tim.... What is the airspeed of a fully laden African Swallow?
Further to your point. Even if registration is required to assume a name or handle, there is nothing to stop an individual - with the inclination, desire and motive - to assume multiple identities, post and skew the slant of a discussion.
It's just another example of why you should not believe everything you read on the internet.
18:53 - Actually I do ... quite well.
Post a Comment