I am pleased to see that the Sun Journal and other newspapers are dropping blogs where people can comment without identifying themselves. Why should people be given a free public forum to say things that may or may not be true and frequently are mean-spirited as well?
I pay for a newspaper because I want news held to certain standards.
I, for one, am a supporter of the new policy.
Thank you.
Susan Martin, Lewiston
not wanting your name and personal information is not cowardly. first let me say their are reasons, good reasons for not posting stuff:
1. identity theft
2. protection orders (crazy people dont need to know what you are saying about them on the big sj)
3. you dont need my name to hear my opinion-it would be the same either way
4. you have a good GOD DAMNED job that doesnt allow you to tell the libs what you think
5. you dont care to be stalked by the weirdos that appear here-which are many
Now friends here are some reasons to let the SJ post your info
1. you have no credit/bad credit and it doesnt matter-my answer? go ahead and pay your bills.
2. like dan you sit home and enjoy food stamps all day and this is your only connection to the outside world
3.you think you maybe superman/woman or someother weirdo superhero, your not invincible, you need to get over yourself- start by putting a fork in your thigh. if it hurts you are probably not a hero.
4. your opinion doesnt matter but you love to hear yourself talk even though you have NOTHING to bring to the table.
~ on feb 1 i will be out, till then you can all enjoy my ranting! ahahahahhaa!
I suggest instead the term Certified, since most of those who have achieved this exalted status are indeed certifiable.
Susan, you, "pay for a newspaper because I want news held to certain standards," and you are paying for/reading the Sun Journal? What are your standards? No editing? No spelling, grammar, or journalism skills by the reporters? Late and inaccurate coverage? Completely missed coverage of major events? No state, national, or world news? In that case you did come to the right place. As for any bloggers being given a free public forum to say things that may or may not be true and frequent mean-spirited as well, at least they are not getting paid for it as the reporters at SJ are and most of the bloggers are much better writers. I have not found any newspaper of general circulation that has taken the steps that SJ is which is to endanger the participants. I would suggest you check out other newspapers that have reader participation such as the pressHerald.com, MiamiHerald.com, OrlandoSentinel.com, WallStreetJournal.com, PostandCourier.com (Savannah, GA), NewYorkTimes.com, just to name a few; you can even post on yahoo.com and CNN.com, giving your real name not required in fact not recommended on any of these and the quality of the writing, editing, and coverage is so much better. I would highly recommend the Press Herald at Pressherald.com for those looking for Maine news including news of Androscoggin, Franklin, and Oxford Counties. This great publication includes the Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel all very well written and edited with excellent reader contributor programs.
As for the program the Sun Journal has recently instituted doing anything to address any reader contributors posting anything that is untrue or mean-spirited, I would call to your attention which members of the community have sought and received "VERIFICATION" in order to continue to post. These have been the most heinous offenders off the "sins" you mentioned, furthermore, since being "VERIFIED" they have been worse than ever. "VERIFICATION" has given them a license to let their hair down, what little it wasn't already and let fly with the most vitriol and irrelevant attacks on other posters, those with no connection to the articles under which they are posting and not contributors, in short anyone and anything is now fair game at any time under any article.
If you are looking, as you say to, "pay for a newspaper because I want news held to certain standards," those standards better be the standards of the National Enquirer if you are paying for and intend to continue paying for the Sun Journal.
Susan, you, "pay for a newspaper because I want news held to certain standards," and you are paying for/reading the Sun Journal? What are your standards? No editing? No spelling, grammar, or journalism skills by the reporters? Late and inaccurate coverage? Completely missed coverage of major events? No state, national, or world news? In that case you did come to the right place. As for any bloggers being given a free public forum to say things that may or may not be true and frequent mean-spirited as well, at least they are not getting paid for it as the reporters at SJ are and most of the bloggers are much better writers. I have not found any newspaper of general circulation that has taken the steps that SJ is which is to endanger the participants. I would suggest you check out other newspapers that have reader participation such as the pressHerald.com, MiamiHerald.com, OrlandoSentinel.com, WallStreetJournal.com, PostandCourier.com (Savannah, GA), NewYorkTimes.com, just to name a few; you can even post on yahoo.com and CNN.com, giving your real name not required in fact not recommended on any of these and the quality of the writing, editing, and coverage is so much better. I would highly recommend the Press Herald at Pressherald.com for those looking for Maine news including news of Androscoggin, Franklin, and Oxford Counties. This great publication includes the Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel all very well written and edited with excellent reader contributor programs.
As for the program the Sun Journal has recently instituted doing anything to address any reader contributors posting anything that is untrue or mean-spirited, I would call to your attention which members of the community have sought and received "VERIFICATION" in order to continue to post. These have been the most heinous offenders off the "sins" you mentioned, furthermore, since being "VERIFIED" they have been worse than ever. "VERIFICATION" has given them a license to let their hair down, what little it wasn't already and let fly with the most vitriol and irrelevant attacks on other posters, those with no connection to the articles under which they are posting and not contributors, in short anyone and anything is now fair game at any time under any article.
If you are looking, as you say to, "pay for a newspaper because I want news held to certain standards," those standards better be the standards of the National Enquirer if you are paying for and intend to continue paying for the Sun Journal.
As stated before Veritas, I got a nasty threatening phone call after writing a letter to the editor from someone who did not agree with my opinion. I did have caller ID and the number came up unlisted. I would have called the police to be sure. As a former police officer where is your empathy? Maybe you would not do anything but someone else might. Are you that trusting????
You're carping and crying about your need for privacy here - yet you'll disregard your Caller ID, and accept any old phone call........
That's completely inconsistant and illogical on your part, Barb. I have empathy for real victims - not 'Show-Boaters' such as you.
You will end up with a very liberal board, with people like Tron leading the way. He can't be polite or reasonable in any discussion. The SJ doesn't even verify their own stories, like the article about a former politician who was feactured. If they had verify the story, they would had been shocked with the truth. After Feb, I am out of here.
Which article are you talking about?
WOW I thought the people of Lewiston and Auburn knew each other well, I guess that's nothing compared to Rumford!! WE Mere 43% who understand that posting under your real name does more harm then good will not sit down and shut up we will not go quietly and I do believe we have change the minds of many!! Real names sound good in theory but falls apart when put into application!! Imagine how bad these cowardly verbal attacks will be after Feb 1, Because the folks responsible for 90% of those attacks were the first to get "Verified". Now they will be armed with all your information, For example your messy Divorce, your Son going to rehab, your brother going to jail, your house in disrepair or foreclosure on and on. Or that their profession or education is better than yours so that makes them right and you a loser that works at that crappy place!! I could go on all day their are a million reasons not to post your information on the internet and no good reasons. Unless you are on attention seeking jackwagon who wants the attention good or bad just needs attention, or you have an agenda to put forward!!!
You will also be taking me off your list SJ. Do not see that my real name is important even though I do not hide it. Being a contrairian I prefer not to be told what to do. As you can see already, it will not change anything regarding childish behavior other than leaving mostly children to play. Good luck and good bye. Will miss the old format, it was fun even as flawed as it was.
The posters who have been endlessly and bitterly railing against this change are a lot of the reason I will not be getting verified and making my personal information public. Seriously, if you don't like the policy change, instead of spending hours posting about how you are going to leave why not just GO AWAY ALREADY. You are sounding more demented all the time.
I am simply trying to help people make the right decision. Take "Armymom" for example. She was one who was originally naive enough to post her personal information but decided against it after our posts helped her to realize the dangers of doing so.
People; feel free to take your personal safety lightly if you’d like, but don’t expect me too do so. I will leave when I am forced too, however until then I will do my best to help folks like "Armymom" protect themselves against internet predators. I mean hell if the Sun-Journal isn’t going to protect their readers, someone should.
Internet posting rule number 1:
Never, EVER post your personal information on the internet, EVER.
Your “Green” banner shows just how “Green” you really are.
Being verified won't change a thing but give the angry bloggers full access to your information so they can harass you at home or at work. If you think verifing will change the demeanor of some in here you are mistaken. The mud slinging and name calling will continue. It will be a forum of complete agreement and nasty comments about conservatives.
For all the crap Gil and I dish out at each other over this Forum - which can get nasty - neither of us have taken it to the extra step which all you Cryers of Doom are self-immolating about.
Congrats Susan....you have been given todays first pat on the back by Mr. Mean Spirited himself, Tron. Two letters in two days supporting the policy.....coincedence? From what I can see, this policy has as much support as a stretched out sports bra. Heck, John Berry is one of the more polite posters here and he has received calls.........
As I write this, five posters have entered comments. Only one was "verified" and, as Gil pointed out, that one immediately violated all the objectives the SJ says it wants to achieve with this new police - excuse me - policy. It seems that big green tattoo isn't very popular. Neither was a big red A or a string of numbers on your forearm.
The rest of the comments are as civil as you can expect, and more civil than most other recent threads. That is, the threat alone was enough to tone things down. Now all you have to do is stop making your own "news" by publishing articles and letters about the change and the <sarcasm>overwhelming</sarcasm> response.
from people never heard from before on these columns. It's easy to sit back and judge how something should go when you are not involved Susan. Because if you have posted on here then you must have been using a pseudonym, which makes you a hypocrite. Or, you are just one of those people who believe they know best without actually having done anything. Or, my suspicion, your name is actually Editorial Board, just like the other letters form people who have never posted on here.
should read "from", not form
Make the "edit" button work. There's a useful change to the system.
I've thought about that. My concern is that someone will say something they will regret, and then, when I get 50 inappropriate comment reports and I go back to look at this comment, it won't be there, or it will be something different.
enabling the "edit" button until either a reply comment is posted, an "Agree" or "Disagree" selection is made, or a "report" is lodged?. In my own case, I sometimes make inadvertent spelling, grammar or usage errors that I try to catch before I "submit", but I'm not always quick enough. Just a thought.
I am leaning in the direction of not favoring the "Verifying" of people making comments. I use my real name and have received phone calls from people who were not pleased with me. This has not stopped me from commenting but I can see how it could influence people to be less than honest. What has stopped me from commenting is knowing that the people involved in the debate do not want a give-and-take of sincerely held views but who simply wish to brand people with opposing views as one kind of evil or another. "Tron", who has times when he is brilliant, has far too often lowered the tone of the discussion with gratuitous insults and frequent ad hominem attacks. Will verification change things like this? I am doubtful.
Thanks for your thoughts, John. We don't think its a silver bullet, for sure ... maybe it will work. Maybe we will go back in a few months. You make valid points.
John,
SJ has good intent – control access and police abuse on this forum; however, their solution alienates a significant number of their patrons – not good for business. The following outlines a registration process that I believe meets both SJ’s objectives and would be acceptable to both factions.
--Keep all information required for the current verification process “private”. SJ verifies true identity as it does today and grants forum access.
--Allow subscribers to enter a “nickname”. The nickname is displayed when posting comments. The nickname is bound to the subscriber’s true name for the life of the account. That is, the subscriber must delete, subscribe, and be verified again to change their nickname. Anyone who wishes to use their true identity simply makes true-name and nickname the same.
--If and when a subscriber is banned from the forum, they cannot simply open a new account. The screening process is no weaker than it currently exists, so SJ meets that objective.
--The nickname is bound to the account and cannot be changed by the subscriber. This provides a consistent identity for the subscriber, but shields their true-name from public view. There are no safeguards in place today to prevent a subscriber from using a false name in the registration process; there is no difference between using a false name at registration or allowing subscribers to use a nickname – the reader is unaware of the commenters true identity. What keeps John Smith from registering as Joe Pedigree? Everyone will get to know Joe Pedigree and like them no more or no less than if John Smith posted the same comments using his true name. Moreover, a subscriber cannot hide behind a changing nickname without submitting to the verification process.
I believe the above process will:
(1) Allow SJ to effectively police the forum.
(2) Allow anonymity to those who desire it.
(3) Allow true identity to those who desire it.
(4) Provide a consistent unchanging identity for those who assert we should use our true names.
(5) Most importantly – SJ can minimize customer dissatisfaction, which is just good business.
Cheers
This fix makes much more sense to me. I would join and continue receiving my news from the SJ after February 1st if this was the fix being employed. However, sadly, come February 1st I will no longer begin my day with the SJ. Like Armymom I will head over to the PPH and Morning Sentinel for my daily dose of morning news. For the better part of 30 years I have been reading the SJ daily but no longer after 2/1.
I personally belong to a number of forums. I joined the Portland Press Herald well before the June elections to be informed on state and national issues since the Sun Journal coverage is virtually non-existant in both regards. I also contribute to CNN, WallStreet Journal, and my home city newspaper out of state which is a major paper. In the past, I have also been involve with papers in the cities where my children have been attending college. None of these has ever required or even hinted I use my true name, had a "publically viewable profile" or anything else of the kind. I have to say everyone, except SJ, has been very professionally managed. http://www.pressherald.com/ is the link for the Portland Press Herald. I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find that it has great state and national coverage and is not limited to the back bay and downtown for "local" news as someone here suggested yesterday. In fact, PPH was at Sugarloaf long before SJ, with better coverage that you don't have to read with a blue pencil in hand. During the last elections, PPH was Johnny on the spot with election news and way ahead of SJ with returns. Not only do you get the PPH at this site you also get the Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel at your mouse pointer as well. I suspect that many of the contributors leaving here Feb 1 will head to PPH and the advertisers won't be far behind. Here's hoping PPH/Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel will expand their coverage of Franklin, Oxford, and Androscoggin County news with the expansion in readership from these markets though I could certainly live with it if they don't.
It appears you have many other homes you may infest.
Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you on your way out.
Another of the newly "verified" immediately violates the objectives of the change. No surprise.
Found Religion just in Time to embrace the Self-Rightousness of Anonymity!!
Armymon,
Thank you for the information. In my heart I agree that true identity should not be required. That said, my response is a proposed compromise for what that is worth.
I assume the forum represents a small portion of SJ’s revenue; the forum may even cost SJ more than it generates in revenue. Pattie Reaves said “If it doesn't work and everyone leaves, then the experiment didn't work and we'll try something else.” It is far more work to recruit new customers than it is to keep existing customers. I don’t believe SJ’s upper manage would allow these comments to fly if the forum really mattered to their revenue stream.
Just my $0.02.
Cheers
A newspaper has two classes of customers, readers and advertisers. A newspaper actually loses money printing a paper newspaper and selling it at new stand pricing. E-editions they do better as their is not printing cost involve and the biggest cost to a newspaper is the printing. Where the reader has value to the newspaper is in the count of subscribers they can take to advertisers, and they are counting everything. They count number of print copies sold at news stands, number of print copy subscriptions, and most importantly number of page hits on the websites online and e-editions. Those numbers are hugely important and that makes us hugely important, here is why. A print copy is sold either on the news stand or by subscription, the paper gets credit for a specified number of readers of that single copy depending upon the demographics, my guess is SJ is lucky if they are getting a 2 for each copy, with 2 being 2 views per copy, then the thing is lining a bird cage. That isn't great when a print copy is a loser at the news stand price. Enter the e-edition and online editions. E-edtions require a subscription which makes the paper a little upfront money towards operating the website which is really very inexpensive and it gives them firm numbers to add onto their print subscribers and I'm guessing they are running around a 2 on that figuring there will be 2 in each subscriber household with access to a computer, the user name and password. There is a caveat to the e-edition however that carries over to the online edition and that is in hits, and that is most definitely where we contributors come in. E-edition and online newspaper readers don't visit each page just once, they keep coming back to see what comments have been added, what updates, who is saying what, and with each return they see those pretty branding ads that with each repeated exposure leave an increasing mark on the viewers memory. Everytime you and I click on a page we get an eye full of banner ad, I bet you can tell me without even thinking about it who the regular banner advertisers are, you have seen them over and over. And they are counting on that; counting on when you needing what they offer, that add, their name is going to pop into your mind and you will be giving them a call or paying them a visit, telling a friend, neighbor or relative or even hints they might have a need go here. At the bottom of each page just where you put in your comment, what's that, yup another ad and another one under the last post that you are surely going to catch as you scroll down to see if there is just one more comment or to hit that button to see the next page of comments. I'd be willing to bet you know quiet a few of those advertisers too. Then there are those annoying pop-ups that Patti recently added that are bringing in huge bucks from the national companies like. . . I knew you'd remember them. And how about the big regional companies and national companies on in the right column strategically placed so you have to look over them when you use the scroll bar? Thought so. Patti is counting every single time you or I click on any page. We don't get counted as being just 1 subscriber or user, no we get counted for PAGE HITS, we are the big bananas. The biggest bananas are the participants, the ones who not only read and follow throughout the day what is being posted but the posters because they are the really heavy users/page hitters. We are also the ones that are going to mark, saw your ad on a website/Sun Journal on customer comment cards. We are gold, at least to knowledgible organizations, where cultivating, preserving, and growing the participants is not only an art form but the mantra, the lifeblood keeping the advertising dollars rolling in and the organization profitable. Professionals managing this super asset know that you don't get participants back that you lose they find new homes and they will take others with them, if not immediately, as soon as they settle into the new site. Once they settle it's all done but the crying, participants are loyal so long as the site is loyal to them, let the site turn and they are a nasty, angry, resentful, spiteful bunch. Participants invest a great deal emotionally in the site, they take personal ownership stakes, will defend it to the death, they build strong relationships with other participants who become like family. When a site behaves the way SJ is, it is seen as an attack on the family, the social center of the active participants and they don't forgive. Once the comfort is removed they are gone and establish a permanent home where they do find the comfort. With them they take all those hits. It is probably very safe to say that the average poster on here is earning SJ between 25 on a bad day say Sunday and 200+ hits in a good day when something like an election is going on or they are screwing with the program. With each hit is a cha ching to the advertising rates. With each hit is a happier advertiser. Now upset the apple cart so the participants are emailing, writing letters to, and calling the advertisers as well as posting, I am done, gone, leaving and here is why. Add a I like doing business with you, would like to continue, I am going here, would like to see your ads there to remind me of you and what you have to offer and you got an exodus of advertisers to go along with the decrease in the value/price the well fetch of the ads because of the decrease in hits. I suspect SJ has a couple of hundred participants at the very least who have not and will not comply with their demands. I also expect from what I have read these are the cream of the crop, working middle class and professionals and well healed retirees that the advertisers really don't want to lose. I suspect that those that are willing to comply are going to be the low income, by and large living on welfare population that aren't a benefit to the advertisers to begin with. That will make the value of the ad space/time plummet even further. The next three to six months should tell the story. The new rules take effect in one month. That will produce instant drop out. I don't know how frequently SJ updates there numbers to advertisers what the lag time is, I expect however worst case Feb 1 mass exodus, March 1 big drop seen in Feb numbers, April 1 another big drop as those who had to take a peak at what is happening with those left behind completely cut ties. By May and June advertisers who did not get the message and make some move to meet the customers at the new location will be seeing a shift in business and a noticable change in reports on comment cards, their ads aren't working for them. By June SJ will probably be in trouble having lost significant readership/page hits, lost significant value in advertising and seeing significant drop in advertising sales.
Armymom,
I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about SJ’s customer base or finances to comment in detail. However, at the 10K foot level, it should be never okay to say let’s just try something and if we lose customers, we’ll try something else. Those comments, in my opinion, reveal inexperience.
Pattie did a good job asking customers what they wanted out of the forum and collecting data. Now as a leader, she must choose to act on that data. She could:
(1) Do nothing.
(2) Use the democratic approach and let the majority (57%) rule and alienate the remaining 43%.
(3) Find common ground where both majority and minority may not be 100% happy, but they are not sufficiently disenfranchised to go else. That in my
opinion is just good business.
Cheers
http://www.pressherald.com/ did a much better job covering the derailment at Sugarloaf today than SJ. You can actually read their articles with out a blue pencil, amazing. The idea that you will miss out on local news is obviously bogus since they did a better job with today's event. Also SJ is more like a local weekly, lots of poorly written gossip articles, very little hard news content. Virtually no state or national news in SJ unlike PPH. With PPH you also get the Morning Sentinel and the Kennebec Journal. The reader contributors are much better and the sytem well, they know what they are doing. I joined well before the June elections in my quest to find state and national news, a huge black hole on SJ. If not for PPH I really would have been an uninformed voter on the bond issues and I would have known nothing of the write-in candidates other than SJ's pet John Jenkins or the listed candidates other than the obviously slanted coverage focused on LePage, Mitchell and begrudgingly at first Cutler. PPH had indepth uniform coverage of ALL the candidate and election happenings around the state. They also had fantastic election night coverage. I expect that after the first the best of the best contributors along with the advertisers will be heading to PPH.
It will be like 'Old Home Week' at the John Birch Society.
Like you, I post to many newspaper comment forums besides the SJ - Concord Monitor, Manchester Union Leader, and the Portland Press Herald to name a few. Of these (at least until 2/1/11) the Union Leader, the epitome of conservative papers in New England, is the most restrictive in its rules for commentors. For EACH post you must enter your name/pseudonym, telephone number and email address, all of which are verified by the paper BEFORE your comment is posted online. Your comment shows your name/pseudonym and town of residence. And if the article being commented upon deals with political candidates, you MUST post under your real name or the UL will not allow your post.
Until the relatively recent sale of the PPH, there were many more commentors than there are today. Many of the regulars, on both sides of any given issue, were extremely intelligent, knowledgeable and well-spoken individuals who were capable of proferring their opinions in a clear, concise and factually accurate manner. Since the sale, a large portion of those commentors have left the site due to the PPH's metamorphosis from a left-leaning publication to a full-blown liberal rag. So if the PPH is your desired destination, by all means go and experience first-hand what journalism should not represent.
Welcome to the majority, Susan. Now you'll be able to read the negative from some very desperate people, they'll have to go back to ironing their sheets.
Tron your silence today was deafening, I hope I did not scare you yesterday that was not my intention, I am trying to awaken you to reality of the world we live in!! I don't think anyone should be intimidated or bullied out of participation in the comment section. I think everyone that participates brings some thing to the discussion.(EVEN Veritas) Unfortunately the SJ disagrees and believes posters need to EXPOSE their identities their families and their livelihoods in order to participate in this forum. I for one am unwilling to do that so I guess after Feb 1 I will be unwelcome here and excluded from the conversation. As a life long Sun Journal subscriber and long time participator in the comment section that this CHANGE is unfair, unjust, unsafe, irresponsible and shortsighted!!
So here is an example of what you might see after Feb 1(These are fake names and not real people to protect the innocent) Now say Dave and John are in a heated debate, well John is loosing the argument, they know exactly who each other is (Thanks to SJ).They live in the same neighborhood six houses apart. John not wanting to concede posts "Hay Dave how's your wife Kate, Enjoying your new deck". Sounds harmless right. AHH But you see Kate had an affair with the guy they hired to build that deck!! Everyone in the neighborhood knows this because of the disturbance when it all came to a head. They have since worked things out and are back together!! But that night golf clubs were flying into the back window of an Escalade and brought everyone's attention!! Do you think Dave marches right over to John house and knocks his block off
Think long and hard people would you send your children to the bus stop wearing name tags!!! Well that's what this CHANGE does, you posters will be as helpless as children standing at the bus stop wearing name tags!!! The SJ thinks this will be an exciting and interesting train wreck to watch and may increase hits on the website for a while!!
Sincerly, Ben Harrison
Tron why do you always go to the racist crap, Really man your smarter then that, you can do better!!! I have lived in Lewiston/Auburn all my life and I don't think I have ever met a Racist!!! I judge people by the content of their character, subsequently leaving me to dislike a great many people. Never for what they are always for who!!! And for the record I will publicly acknowledge Tron is not on welfare, he is in fact gainfully employed and provides for his beautiful family!! Kudos to you we often disagree on politics but Dan you are truly one of the "GOOD GUYS". Oh but IF you cut down on the Vegas slots though you could get a lot more posting done!!!
I have decided to leave this forum. It has nothing to do with my employer, or the vague paranoid threats that everybody else seems to see from nefarious cyber psychos. What has prompted me to leave is watching all of the comments and name calling that I have seen here between supposedly intelligent people. Some of you post literate and responsible comments that have merit and value. Unfortunately, there are many more who post paranoid, self serving, hateful, and (worst of all) possibly personally and professionally damaging information about other forum members simply to suit their own twisted agendas. You are the kind of people who, as children and possibly as adults, put bugs under a magnifying glass just to see them cook.
Nothing that has been revealed here about me has been damaging in any way, but I have seen the lows to which people will stoop when they can't make their point in a reasonable fashion. They see fit to draw families and employers into discussions where they weren't mentioned to begin with. As I said before in another post, you supposedly normal people are the ones that others have to watch out for. The crazies don't have anything on you.
With that said, Thanks to those of you who understand what accountability means. And for the rest of you, who up until this point had seemed to be normal, have a nice life living in a world where you use the protection of freedom of speech to spout off at the face, but are afraid to actually take responsibility for what you say. In essence, your mouths write checks that your not unwilling/able to cash with your butts.
This has turned into a fine country. I love it but some of it's residents are pathetic. I don't want to be associated with you anymore. I'm embarrassed.
By the way, CommonSense, I figured out who you are.
Goodbye forever Ed. I don't know how we'll manage without you.
Let me ask you these questions:
As the verifications process is currently defined, do you think SJ will achieve their objective?
Assume that all current forum members are verified under their true identity, will this change the tone of the forum?
Please share your opinion.
Cheers
Will SJ achive their "stated" objective as the verification process is currently defined? Not a chance. As proof one need only look at the outcome thus far. Take a look at who has agreed to the new terms, their past performance and the performance since being "VERIFIED." For example:
Veritas has already been "VERIFIED" here is just one of his latest posts that doesn't even come close to achieving the stated objective.
One of his most mild I might add.
And do you want me to tell you that Hermann Göring
Submitted by veritas on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 12:20.
Was merely a fat Fly-boy who wanted to indulge his carnal pleasures with no interest in the Final Solution?? Sure, F&H.
Submitted by tron on Sun, 12/26/2010 - 19:04.
Typical of the right wing wacko liar group, make things up and then attack using your lies as ammunition. Provide proof of your accusation, or apologize.
On the article "An exclusionary practice"
At least he had a brain fart and hit the save key before he got to the bigot, pervert and pedaphile name calling in this one.
Then of course there is Voisine who goes after people who are not in the stories under which he is commenting, people not commenting on the stories, he is famous for attacking long gone participants and he relishes in attacking people who would never come on here to defend themselves. His comments frequently aren't relevent to the story or any comments. Here is an example of another of Patti's pets work since the "VERIFICATIONS" began another willing submitter to the new requirements. Correction, let's make it four.
Voisine's Comments
new
No Racoon Look for Princess!
Submitted by Voisine on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 14:09.
Conservamom,
While we're chatting about Princess LePage, please tell her she wears too much eyeliner next time you see her at the Heritage Foundation meeting, will you please? She looks like a Raccoon.
Oops ... sorry, she looks like a very WELL FED Raccoon!
I wonder whether Big Daddy LePage considered that his act of nepotism was not only a slap in the face of every Mainer, but would essentially make his daughter into a "public figure" and therefore the subject of much derision? Nah ... LePage doesn't like to think, he likes to ACT!
On the article "LePage needs loyalty, but also straight talk"
They Wouldn't Want You ... Conservamom
Submitted by Voisine on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 13:57.
Conservamom,
I'm sure that neither Chelsea Clinton nor Megan McCain would want you as a mother. At least Chelsea benefited from having smart parents and couldn't imagine being raised by a far right, knuckle dragging loon.
On the article "LePage needs loyalty, but also straight talk" .new
What Princess LePage Didn't Care About
Submitted by Voisine on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 13:53.
Princess LePage didn't care about the negative exposure that this act of neoptism would bring to her father because she learned the only Republican "family value," namely self-interest above all principle, honor and dignity, from her father.
On the article "LePage needs loyalty, but also straight talk" .Top 10 Reasons Why "Princess" LePage Deserves Gov. Job
Submitted by Voisine on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 13:26.
Top 10 Reasons Why “Princess” LePage Deserves Government Job
1. I know Daddy and am able to spot that “look” when he’s angry and needs to find a restroom ASAP!
2. It’ll save Daddy lots on a wedding if he can just find me a wealthy Republican, and what better way to do it then prop me by the door next to his office!
3. I bring in doughnuts ever Tuesday and Thursday
4. I’m someone who cares about people who don’t complain, the rest I just transfer to Daddy!
5. What … did you expect me to work for a living, I’m the Governor’s daughter!
6. I helped out on Daddy’s campaign by getting coffee just the way he likes it!
7. Florida is so full of “foreigners” and stuff, it’s better living here in Maine … if you know what I mean!
8. The Capital is near my Weight Watchers meeting site, how convenient!
9. It’s none of your business anyway, you liberal!
10. Daddy promised I’d get to meet some cute State Troopers if I worked for him!
On the article "LePage needs loyalty, but also straight talk" .
These are three of the most prolific contributors, all have been "VERIFIED," all are Patti's Pets and all contintue to post exactly what SJ claimed what they were trying to get away from. The question should be, " will SJ achieve their stated objective?" The answer is already definitively in and it is absolutely not.
Ed, I understand your frustration with some posters here, but you appear to be one who thinks logically and critically then expresses his opinion eloquently without embellishment or condescension. Your voice of reason will be sorely missed should you decide to act upon your decision to leave. What I can't quite come to grips with is the nagging feeling that someone could stoop so low as to expressly publicize information that would normally be unknown to the general public. I suppose that it's possible that type of behavior is the norm for people living in...let's just say...Newmarket, NH, Granville, MA, Deer Isle, ME, Greenland, NH, Little Neck, NY, Springvale, ME, or even South Paris, ME. It may even be stereotypical behavior for people who write urban hiking guides or phamphlets about places to put in your boat on the NH seacoast. But it certainly couldn't be the deliberate work of someone who is supposed to be...say... a responsible community growth leader and economic developer, now could it?
At any rate, if you decide to leave this forum, you shall be missed. God speed.
Just what do you think is going to happen when this forum is left to the name calling Tron's, Voisine's and Veritas'? Any decent people that give it a try using their own names are going to be eaten alive.
and I don't expect to be in the near future. The onlt difference is that I may have to pick up the slack left by those who are afraid or otherwise unwilling to reveal their true identities in support of their opinions. We'll see.
It isn't Feb 1 yet either. Just wait until the bulk of the participants have bailed leaving behind only Tron, Voisine, Veritas and company.
Patti, you said how many have applied and how many have been verified. How many total members are there? I'm curious as to just how many people at this point have said, "I ain't going there." How many community members on the books including the ones like ArmyMom and CandiceAnne you recently booted.
Until all the Malcontents have vented their collected spleen and ascended to Annie Moose Heaven
Welcome to the new Sun Journal How many days 2 or 3 posting under your real name!! It's not as fun as you thought it would be, let this be a lesson to everyone posting under your real name only puts your life out there to be burned under magnifying glass!!
not willing/unable
A "Verified" member showing civility, use of facts, and not being mean spirited. Well done Dan. It's just too easy. Good luck on that date with Rex
Report a correction
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
Login or create an account here.
Our policy prohibits comments that are:
- Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
- Excessively foul and/or vulgar
- Inappropriately sexual
- Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
- Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
- Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.