Some of you readers just come here to complain on every issue I blog! I got one question? Can you be nice????
Sigh....and many of you are wondering why I moderate the comment section?
Come on? Lets debate the issue.
You don't like the way I write or blog? You bother coming in here the first place?
Just don't come back and don't let the information highway door slam you in the face!!!...lol
18 comments:
The CBC has once again opened you up to the general public, which means more people who don't agree with you are coming here. Hopefully civil debate can become part of what happens here; if that's what you want, people ought to allow it to happen.
Charles, I started reading your blog a few days ago and enjoy the pictures, but not always the comment you make with the pictures. Maybe if you stop making nasty comments about other people, then visitors to your blog will stop making nasty comments about you, like my father used to say, what goes around comes around. It is true, right. I thnik your a nice guy and you do care about the issues but sometimes since I've been reading your blog you have said some nasty things about people. If you stop doing that I bet you there won't be many more nasty comments from the visitors. Merci.
I also agree. I go through items and if I have no interest I move on; or when I am interested I tyr to make an intelligent comment. It does bother me the comments that try to bring people down for no reason. Charles has been nice enough to bring forward information with alot of work. If you don't like the man or you dislike the sight more on. Let some of us enjoy it. No one forces you to read or write. Do yourself a favour and yes most of us would like it too. Go to another Blog you may like alot more. Life is too short. Make a point that will at be thought worthy and move on. Did someone asign you to try and take this bkog down? Give some thought.
You are so right Charles. Its like a broken record, you blog about an issue and people just can't shut up about the non relevant issues.
Heaven forbid that we are not as perfect as they are eh?
Its so irritating.
I agree with all the above. Charles can be pretty nasty with his comments about other people. Can we 'slow down' those nasty comments? I doubt Charles will. So who knows, those nasty comments could be just them reciprocating.
There is 'coverage' and then there is 'harassment', and 'slander'. Charles frequently goes over that line. Breaking the law is definitely 'nasty', so as the above poster says, 'what goes around comes around'. It's like terrorism, if you want to cut back on it, stop committing it in the first place.
Charles often says he 'has a team', and as a contributor to that team I have only his best interests in mind, however, we on the team have no say in what gets put out, even though the responsibility is partly ours. If it is about 'issues', then make it about ISSUES.
Making comparisons to 'old germany' is NOT an issue. Particularly when you know nothing about the history of germany.
Harassing bureaucrats is not an issue. Covering a story there is, but harassment is out of line, particularly when it was eight MLA's who had Charles banned.
Calling people 'bigots' is not an issue, particularly when the only evidence is how they treat one person (if it can't be proven in more than one case, then it certainly can't be called bigotry)
So yes, by all means, let's stop with the 'nasty' comments. This blog and Charles has the potential to be a great boon for New Brunswickers. The fact that there are ingrates and idiots out there calling Charles names doesn't worry me, it means he's having an impact. What is far more worrying is that he does the very thing that he criticizes others for doing.
So set an example Charles, stop with the 'nasty comments' and people will be COMPLETELY understanding when you cut off the nasty comments of others. Talk to you soon.
Charles, If I ever get off these cruches and can get around I'll look you up and buy you a Double double. Its good to hear from you again I was worried about the big lull on the 6th of Nov. I checked in about five times and no change in the blog, I figured Mayor Norm,Kenith I, and polic officer Bonner kidnaped you and gave you a shovel and forced you to start digging the new pipeline.
I think that you need an Editor and that would solve everyones problem, because knowing you the way I do, I know that you type exactly what you are thinking and post it as soon as its typed. That's pretty obvious to us all. The sad thing is an Editor cost money and that you have none so folks get use to his RAW (like they said on CBC the other night)posting. So like many have said if you do not like it here don't bother visiting this site!
Charles would never have an editor. Entire blogs will be devoted to slandering somebody, an editor would not allow that because it is disreputable. But since its Charles blog I doubt he'd tolerate somebody 'censoring' him. People have told him time and time again that the old germany references discredit him, it doesn't take brains to listen to that criticism, its that Charles simply won't listen to that complaint. Calling the head of the union a bigot because he supported the ban on Charles was also pointed out by many to be completely over the line. You can't be a bigot for censuring ONE person. You might be a prick but it certainly doesn't make you a bigot-not to mention that he represents the staff that doesn't like charles around so its no surprise he'd support the ban.
Yet he still calls him a bigot, even though that's constantly pointed out. Charles has loyal supports who forgive his extremes, but its a barrier because other New Brunswickers simply see him as an extremist who can't be trusted.
I don't agree with the above at all. Harassment is not 'style'. Unlike some commentors think, although I criticize Charles when he steps over the line, I am probably the biggest supporter of Charles and he knows it.
If I were a politician or head of a union and Charles were calling me a bigot then that's defamation, particularly because there is ZERO proof. Bigotry is against a race, organization, or religion, or culture. Not only was the union leader simply supporting his union which wanted Charles out (and some of them could have been acadians as well) but clearly he is no friend to people's liberties (but again, we aren't there and have only Charles word for it-hardly a way to make an 'objective' evaluation of the issues).
Not only that, but eight MLA's were the ones who actually banned him, and Charles blogs about the head of security, who has no authority to ban him, and one union leader who supports it. No harassment or blogs are ever done about the people who ACTUALLY banned him (except of course for Tanker).
That's being pretty 'nasty' to t he people who didn't even make the decision. And this isn't idle debate we are talking about. One of these days Irvings or the union is simply going to call up Google and say 'shut down this blog or we'll sue YOU!' Saying the Irvings in Saint John are planning a 'final solution' is so inflammatory that if there were a jewish organization in New Brunswick this site would be called 'hate speech'.
So patting Charles on the back all the time and ignoring his 'idiosyncracies' does him no favours. Those kind of antics are endangering the site. Hell, a woman in ontario was sued for 6 million and had to remove her site just because she had posted pictures of labour violations which were actually true!
To make things simple, people can debate what I'm talking about:
Libel: calling people names in print or on the air (ie. in public domain) is libel. That means 'bigot'. A court of law decides on whether it is libel or not, it doesn't waste time (unfortunately) on proving or disproving whether that person is a bigot or not.
Harassment: That could be another first for Charles site. At one point does a 'blogger' become a 'harasser'. Charles has taken many pictures of people without permission, and I know a lot of people who used to be huge supporters of his but are now completely miffed. There have been some cases where I agree.
Threats: Combined with the above, this becomes even more serious. Charles often gleefully says "I'll blog you til the end of time" on many occasions, granted, they've been less and less, but clearly that is intimidation. Somebody might say that that is good, that maybe the other person won't cross the line, but the reality is that many of these people are just doing their job and have no choice. Having their picture posted with lord knows what comment IS very stressing.
Irvings: This is the biggest issue simply because there is only so much that Irving will take before they lash out. And when they do, it won't be the silliness that Charles talks about with violence. It will be that phone call to Google which shuts down his blog. You won't hear about it, it won't be in the news, just one day the site won't be here again. Charles won't be able to use his email with them, so those on the mailing list will get an email from a hotmail account or something, and Charles will be back to emailing everybody, which will be far fewer than see his blog.
The picture of him taking a leak on the rock is pretty amateurish, but that's not the real problem. It isn't even the stating that the police and everybody are working for Irving. Its the 'old germany' and 'final solution' and 'gestapo' comments that are the problem. Individuals have been sued in this country for FAR FAR less. Like I said, it won't be for money, because he has none, it will be to simply shut down his site.
If it was just one occasion then that would be one thing, and newspapers and bloggers 'apologize' and remove the offending link. But this has been a pattern and in court a company could show that the entire site should be shut down.
Those are four issues that have nothing to do with 'style' but with LAW. That's where freedom of speech ends in this country. You defame, libel or slander some person or some company and you end up in court. That doesn't mean you can't 'criticise', reporters do that all the time.
Those four things are in the distinct minority on the website, maybe in the order of 5% of the blogs. But when that 5% endangers the existence of the blog and can simply be resolved with editorial decisions, then people do Charles no favour by saying 'let it go'. These issues are more important than Charles. Charles sometimes says its the 'peoples blog', we know what he means, its not true of course, but 'the people' don't want to be sued and have the site shut down. This isn't 'venting' or any kind of academic exercise. As people should know by now with the banning and the arrest there are very real consequences to actions, and those four points above, together or individually could have Google shut off CHarles site, and the site is simply too important for that.
1- The Irvings lied when they twice called me a protester in their paper.
We're not allowed to write critical letters of the Irving.
Old germany? My point is when Hitler took power? He took control of the media. Same here in New brunswick.
As for Tom Mann? He wrote a letter to the Irving paper praising my ban from the Legislature.
The reasons I was ban was was all lies!!
You don't understand how the system works.
Now lets not forget that I wasn't allowed to write a letter to the Irving paper against Tom Mann.
Bigot? Yes because he supported a ban for a guy that was an activist against the poor.
As for shutting down the blog?
There's a lot or wrost blog than this one. Take a look down the states.
I don't blog lies. I blog facts!!! If something is not totally correst? I will asked the question?
Anything wrong with asking questions?
If this blog is shut down? Well. we'll have to start a new website.
Lets face facts here! I'm not going nowhere.
Again Charles, and anybody else, 'bigotry' is NOT bias against ONE person. If a black guy insults me and I insult him back that doesn't make me a racist. Tom Mann supporting the government does NOT make him a bigot in any way. It may make him a prick, but that's it. If there were five poor people banned and he said he supported their ban then MAYBE you cold call it bigotry, but 'poor people' aren't known as a separate culture or race unfortunately.
We've seen the 'explanation' about 'old germany' before, and of course it simply makes zero sense. Hitler was an elected official, that's Sean Graham, or Lord, NOT Irving. If it was 'old germany' we'd see Sean Graham, or lord, taking over all the Irving enterprises.
That's not the point anyway, and this has nothing to do with 'how things work' it has to do with the legal system. Using terms like 'final solution', 'gestapo' and 'old germany', not to mention the hitler pictures, is 'harmful to the Irving image'. THAT is exactly what others have been sued for. The woman in Ontario was sued because her site made a developers company look bad, even though it was all true and even verified by government officials (who not suprisingly disappeared when the lawsuit was announced)
However, I doubt it would go as far as a lawsuit, because Irving is a BIG company, Google certainly wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug if it got a call from Irving lawyers. Once you are kicked off one hosting service its difficult to find another.
Like I said though, that doesn't mean you can't criticize. Papers do it all the time. But criticism doesn't mean slandering people and calling them names. The truth is a powerful weapon, the slander isn't even necessary and somewhat defeats your purpose. When you respond in an outlandish way like that you lose public sympathy, more people start to think 'geez, if he acts like that he SHOULD be banned'.
So criticizing Tom Mann for supporting this decision is fine, go to town. Just don't call him names, simply as that and the problem is solved.
Irving is a dictatorial company, we all know that. They have undue political influence, we all know that. Calling them on that is fine, but making the association to old germany, a GOVERNMENT, not a company, that was genocidal to the extreme, is simply insane and I've never seen anybody here post anything close to support for that analogy.
Those references don't even do anything to advance the issue, in fact they are detrimental. By comparing them to something infinitely worse, it makes them look more moderate.
Those are hardly big editorial changes - not calling people names. Not calling people 'bigots' and not calling them 'nazis' is hardly an unreasonable request, and we've seen it here again and again for a reason.
You know who I am Charles so you know I have your best interests at heart, but above that is the interests of the New Brunswickers who benefit from this blog.
The stories about the truth is fine but the comments about name calling is not Charles it is the Bloggers who don't want this site to do well. MY to cents worth. Love the site most of the time when the facts come in. Can't stand some the characters who have nothing to say except to say they hate this blog, don't read, don't write and leave us alone please!
The name calling comes from Charles as well (if thats what the above refers to). Calling people nazi's and bigots comes from Charles. When you call other people names you certainly invite the same to yourself. It isn't the 'truth' that Irvings are like nazi's, and it isn't the truth that Tom Mann is a bigot.
Of course such comparisons are crazy and insulting, and again, any jewish person would take huge offense that comparisons are made between the party committing a holocaust, and a corporation that acts pretty much like every corporation does.
All you have to do is go back to when they were first posted to see the response of 'the people'. People were vitriolic when Charles called the union leader a bigot, but very few actually said they supported Tom Mann in that regard, and few condemned Charles and his blog. It was simply because it is BAD blogging. Then Charles continued it by calling Brent Taylor a bigot as well as Tanker. While Charles is right to be upset that he was banned, calling people names is bad blogging.
Actually, I doubt it is bloggers coming down on Charles. Like any group they are quite supportive of one another. Long ago there was another critic who was saying much the same thing, but he also made it plain that, like me, his criticisms were meant to help Charles succeed. It's a folly of human pride not to be able to look at your actions and be able to judge them objectively. What do you think of the child in the playground that runs around calling people names?
Charles doesn't work for anybody and has only these posts to rely on for criticism, so nobody should apologize for making criticisms, thats free speech. As I said before, and will keep saying, calling people names is amateurish, childish, bad form, insulting to readers, harmful to the blog and 'the cause' and so easy not to do.
To add another reason, this is why Charles will NEVER get a press pass, because he can't behave like a reporter. Contrary to his claims, the americans don't let just activists with blogs come to press conferences, they invite those with journalistic blogs, who are objective.
There's a reason for that, because once you let one 'non mainstream media' person in, you have to let them all in. If the site was a media site then that wouldn't be a problem. But if Charles had a press pass then every activist for every group in the province would have to be given one. That's a LOT of people, and a lot of questions politicians don't want to be answering.
Yes, this is repetitive, but its important, and at least unlike some I'm not posting the remarks on every single thread-and if you don't like it, don't come back to this thread or ignore the comments. I don't call Charles names and if I didn't support him I sure as hell wouldn't have bought him that camera.
And that is the other problem, Charles can take lawsuits very lightly because he has little to lose except the website. Yet he does have supporters, and if there were a lawsuit, a company could very easily refer to his 'team' as parties in a lawsuit. WE do have things to lose but feel this stuff is important and Charles is the man for the job (otherwise we'd be on Spinks or David Campbell's 'team'). This doesn't just involve Charles.
His 'team' does NOT support name calling, harassment and slander, and that's a problem, and one we're having a hard time dealing with because Charles won't listen to that one simple criticism. That's hardly censorship, because those things are clearly illegal, I can cite the laws. So defending them as free speech is like defending a criminal whose acts are 'just self expression'.
If I were Tom Mann I would be suing. He holds an elected position, and there are probably many acadians in his union whose votes he relies on, so this continuous defamation hurts his career, and that is easy grounds for a suit. And as said, it's his union members who wanted Charles out, so its no surprise he would support them. There are now seven sitting elected officials who banned him, only one of whom was also called a bigot.
We don't hear Sean Graham or Kelly Lamrock called a bigot, far from it. THAT is 'selective prosecution', calling certain people names and blogging them, and ignoring others. Ironically, that's the exact same charge Charles aims at the Saint John police, that they singled him out over others more complicit and harassed him. So one can easily say its the 'pot calling the kettle black'. That's a stretch, because of course one is in a court of law, and the other the limited world of the blog, but as the blog gets bigger, so does the stakes. If Charles wants to avoid criticism, simply stop acting the same way his detractors are.
Just wish to make myself clear on one issue.
The last comment is the person who bought me the camera.
CBC said that it was given from a Anonymous donor.
This is indeed the case because I never met the individual.
Now? Tom Mann wrote that letter against me. He singled me out in front of all the readers in the Daily Gleaner and other papers!
I was nice and asked his lawyer David Brown for a meeting with Tom Mann but they ignored me.
So what am I suppose to do???
This makes him a bigot!!!
Look in the dictionary the word bigot?
Ignorance towards a group of people with any reason.
This makes Tom Mann a bigot!
As for the court and be sued???
I say - BRING THEM ON!!!!
Then we will know the names of the individuals who took a summer stress leave because of me and I will sue them for defamation or blog them to death???
I don't know which one would be worst????...lol
I didn't start this one. Tom Mann did.
I didn't even know who the guy was but one thing is a certain fact???
I WILL FINISH IT!!!! No one degrades me and gets away with it!!!
This battle will continue for a long long long time!!!
This is exactly the problem Charles. The above post simply makes you sound insane. THAT is a big problem. What exactly does "I will finish it" mean? It makes you sound violent, unpredictable and dangerous and that is holding you back.
YOU are NOT a 'group'. You are a single individual. Therefore it is not bigotry. So that is slander.
Moreover, it is unnecessary. I'll say it again, the truth is a powerful weapon. We all remember your blog when this happened, we read the story as well as your blog about how you tried to get a meeting with them.
Up to that point everybody is on your side. We read the blog, we know that it was politicians playing petty dictators.
But as soon as you start calling him a bigot, particularly right at the beginning of a blog, you lose support. People reading it think "how can a guy be a bigot when its just against Charles". Even other blogs picked up on it and ran several threads about how the increasing use of such words just diminishes their meaning.
When you make statements like "I will finish it" (you really can't, the guy can ignore you forever if he wants) then you feed into the critics who say you SHOULD be banned because you sound so unpredictable and dangerous. At each point you lose more and more support. Think strategically, there's a reason that 60 minutes, and The Fifth Estate always make sure to show the scenes where they are trying to get an interview with somebody, because by refusing such a banal request it makes people look guilty. When Tom refuses to even talk to you it makes him look guilty, and that's half the battle.
The question as to 'what am I supposed to do' is a good one. First, don't get excited, stay calm. Life is long.
Of course Tom Mann is not the only person to support your ban, many people have posted on here and been ignored. Tom Mann is not the problem, the government is. Saying that he supported the ban is hardly 'degrading', that's just in your mind. You can ask on your blog for feedback but I doubt you can find a single person who thought less of you because of what this guy did. Everybody knows what a creepy little bureaucracy Fredericton is. If anything, it made people more sympathetic.
Even if you want to take it personally there is TONS that can be done in a legitimate way. As head of the union made up of government employees taking shots at that guy is like fish in a barrel. In case you haven't noticed, unions aren't exactly the most popular organizations around these days.
So if you want to 'reciprocate', do it legitimately. Heres some story ideas:
1. Why is it that while government investment in the entrepreneurial sector has dried up, the largest growth has been civil service unions?
2. The Irving news ran a story on just how secretive the government bureaucracies are, Tom is head of the union that essential cuts off New Brunswickers finding out anything about what their government is doing. Time after time the problem has been pointed at bureaucrats-in fact MLA's will often attest to not being able to get information.
3. Union salaries have been rising while non union salaries have stagnated and in many cases are falling. While that's not specifically the fault of unions, the NB books show that if union members weren't quite so greedy then perhaps some money could be put into the welfare systems and training and development.
And those are just off the top of my head, look into any union and you can find more dirt than that (and I'm pro union), and within each one there are dozens of issues that won't make them look good. As they say "don't get mad, get even"
Sorry to make this public but like I said, you are starting to tread dangerous ground and I have to make sure its clear that 'the team' (me anyway) does NOT support such antics. I know the law, and if you say team and people are found to support the blog then they can be tied to what it says. If a lawsuit develops I have to make sure that I am not tied in as a supporter of those actions, and here we at least have some public witnesses.
As you know I support just about everything you do, and 95% of what you say. I do have to look out for my own interests though, I know you don't think anything can come of it, and hopefully it won't, but I'll remind you that the Conservation Council of NB was sued by Bennett International just for a letter to the editor.
Moi? Violent? Nooooo....< only if someone punhes me first >...lol
I'll finish it???? I met that he wrote a letter to the Irving's paper to discredit me.
He had his one day of fame and I'll finish it by blogging this issue till the end of time.
Courts? That would be a very good thing because we would find out who are those Union employees who went out on stress leave during the summer months because of me.
I believe it's the Union that could get sued.
But I will take your advice and calm down! < a little >
I will find this very hard!!!!
Good enough. If you want to sue, then talk to your lawyer after the trial. There is a case against the Saint John police, the provincial government, namely the eight guys who had you banned. But the union, that's a hard lawsuit.
Here's some history:
A woman caught on camera allegedly being struck by a police officer during last year's Stanley Cup celebrations is suing Edmonton police for more than $6-million.
A woman whose husband died of a heart attack in front of Toronto Police Headquarters has launched a $1-million lawsuit claiming officers failed to help the man because they thought he was homeless.
A Toronto lawyer who says his car was surrounded by police who accused him of having drugs and guns will file a lawsuit Wednesday for the surprise shakedown.
A lawsuit may be just what the Saint John police needs, as well as the government. THEN the government would have to prove that banning you was for security purposes.
pictures are worth a million words. If taking a picture is what it takes to get some justice around here then so be it.
Reminder....this is charles blog. Not yours, not Irvings, not anyone elses but Charles Leblancs.
IF you don't like what he blogs about then take your business elsewhere. Simple as that.
Debating is one thing, talking about both sides of the issues is another.
There are how many blogs out there? Go find one that meets your needs. Leave his alone.
Post a Comment