Why are some topics "locked" ? Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
The recent post about Rick Santorum gave several people the opportunity to sound off about their political beliefs before degenerating into the normal political free-for-all so ubiquitous on the internet … and then, was "locked" by the Palo Alto Online editor.
It's clear monitoring the often uncivil and volatile comments on these political arguments could be labor and time intensive, but it hardly seems fair to leave those posts in place to bother and provoke readers even more because they do not then have the opportunity to respond.
What are the guidelines on locking an article and is there any effort made to apply it uniformly. I've had my complaints about the objectivity of the editors here many times, so, why not just delete the whole article and be fair about it?
I was in the middle of posting this when my browser just hung up. Hardly seems fair for me not to get my "polite" say because others cannot be civil.
First, there is no such thing as "income equality" as a political constituency so promoting income inequality is a non-sequitor - it's the norm, a fact.
The issue is the system being rigged, and it is politically, mathematically, culturally, and in many other ways. The issue is that the successful need to pay their taxes so the government can build an infrastructure to allow everyone, or at least those who want to to participate in the country or we end up in a mess … like we are in today.
Whatever any politician "understands" is irrlevent because they are paid to be there and project an image by someone else for someone else with enough money and power to command the attention of others.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 3:18 pm
There are often threads either locked or else left for registered members only, while others are allowed to go on with two posters arguing seemingly indefinitely. I remember one occasion when I was having a very civil discussion with one other person and we were getting into a form of agreement having been completely against each other to begin with.
The decision never seems to follow set guidelines, perhaps just the whim of the editor in charge at the time.
It seems rather a silly thing to do as really the ease with which a fresh thread can be started by someone still willing to discuss can be done, as shown twice today.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Like I said, the only problem I can see is that it takes too much time and resources to monitor ... and they do need to be monitored because the of the extremism and lack of civility on the part of some. But there should be some process or rule in place because to me it seems arbitrary when done, and unfair in different ways too.
If there is a problem, solve it, do not impose on our citizen's rights to speech ... after all corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to push their POVs, we should at least be able to state ours in our local online community forum ... if we do it thoughtfully and with civility .... right? ;-)
Maybe it is done when the editor gets too many complaints about comments and judges it is too much time and effort to manage?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Sorry, but I don't see your post above relevent to my topic except obliquely in continuing the row that got the last topic shut down. Plus you took a long time, a lot of space, and a confusing way to make the point that you are somewhat irrational in criticism of Mitt Romey. Heck, I would think about deleting that too.
If I was an editor I would not be happy about the resulting escalating replies that would follow a comment like that and the time it would take me to monitor, read, arbitrate if they desereve editing or deleting and then have to edit or delete.
What drives someone to get so irrational that they have to write about people by using funny sarcastic names for them? And it's not like I am not sympathetic to your opinion, I mostly agree about Romney, and all of the candidates on either side can be railed against for one reason of the other … so what is your point?
And what is the point of these forums when they become just a war of words where no one listens anyway?
Posted by Foster, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
"If I was an editor I would not be happy about the resulting escalating replies that would follow a comment like that and the time it would take me to monitor, read, arbitrate if they desereve editing or deleting and then have to edit or delete."
You're kidding, right?
Host an online forum that boosts readership and in which one derives ad revenue and then complain because people post?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Marks was right. Romney is an abomination - a predator who will lie and switch any side just to gain favor with the fools who trust him.
Myth Romney? "funny sarcastic"
Funny, but because of he element of truth. I googled it and am surprised it hasn't caught on much.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Foster ….… Foster Brooks ?
No one is complaining about people posting only that they cannot do so without causing irritation to readers and too much work for the editors .. at least that is what I surmised. For instance the rambling post that character assassinates Mitt Romney. I am not a Romney supporter in the least, but I see little information or editorial content in that.
Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 1:33 pm
"He is actually worse than Gingrich and Romney and that is saying something."
Romney flipflops on everything, so he meets most viewpoints half the time. I'm confused about the discussion above, with posts deleted or censored, apparently about Romney.
From the link posted by food for thought “The officials named in this report have chosen to enrich themselves and their families and friends by abusing the power of their office, rather than work for the public good. Their collective corruption affects all Americans”
In my opinion, i had previously thought the Senator was the one in the race that was not in it for money. Newt started his campaign to sell books and dvds, drive up his speaking fees and to attempt to remain relevant - his early campaign stops were mostly bookstores and his original staff quit because Calista was more interested in income generating appearances at bookstores than traditional campaign stops.
Romney is in it to cut his taxes in half.
I still think that of the three, the Senator is the one in the race for genuine beliefs and not self serving, money based reasons.
Posted by food for thought, a resident of another community, on Mar 24, 2012 at 6:04 pm
there are 4 people running in the Republican primary and Ron Paul is the most Conservative/legitimate candidate of them all. (Santorum genuine? I got a lists of reasons why he isn't worthy, but my postings of them seem to have gone missing on this site once before. More of my posts go missing than remain to be read. I would read this one fast before it goes too.)
-He has been married for 54 years.
-Won Conservative Values Poll with 37% (Herman Cain was 2nd with 23%)
-Won CPAC 2 times (Last time the voting was switched to electronic voting and Ron Paul wasn't even allowed to speak TO KEEP HIM FROM WINNING.)
-He is reportedly getting over 70% of the donations from military.
-He is the only one AGAINST attacking of Iran running in Rp. primary.
-He said he would end all uncontitutional provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
-He voted against the Patriot Act.
-He said he will end the income tax.
-He said he would cut 1 trillion out of his first budget.
-He said he would shut down many of our foreign military bases and bring those troops home.
-He has said that the our Government is moving towards FASCISM. HE WOULD STOP THIS AGENDA.
-The convicted Jack Abramoff said that Ron Paul is a politician WHO WOULDN'T TAKE HIS BRIBES.
By the way: Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands with 29% to Romney 26%
Ron Paul areas in Maine were admittedly not counted to keep him from winning. www.infowars.com discusses areas NOT COUNTED.
Ron Paul approx. 7 precincts in Iowa were not counted to keep him from winning Iowa Straw Poll. Press has admitted Iowa scam.
Ron Paul said that he won majority of delegates from Alaska despite press claiming he came in 3rd (?).
Ron Paul had crowds of 5000+ people compared to Santorums 150+ people crowds and press claims Santorum won there too.
These are just a few of the discrepancies that have happened this primary season. You should go to www.infowars.com, etc. to see the stories/information for yourself.
My POINT IS THAT RON PAUL IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT AND THE ELITESTS OF OUR COUNTRY ARE TRYING TO MAKING SURE HE CAN'T WIN. My answer is to vote Ron Paul no matter what. A vote for him is better than a vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich even if they rig the vote. See book "Vote Scam" for more information on how elections in the USA are rigged.
Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Mar 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm
food for thought
Did you post this ass a new topic earlier today?
I can't find it now, I wanted to comment. Was it deleted?
Paul is unelectable. Romney will lose to Obama based on the flip flops and his recent statements.
Senator Santorum is the best choice. Best case, besides Santorum winning, Santorum stops Romney from clinching and it's an open convention for better candidates to be considered. Paul isn't even in the discussion except for shaving off a few delegates from Romney. Then selling them to Romney so his son Rand can be on the ticket.