From the trench, folks. The efforts of a certain for-profit Neighborhood Web-Site company to preserve the flow of illegal narcotics profits in the Beacon Hill (and Alta Vista) Neighborhoods by spreading lies about a certain Neighborhood HyperActivist are brought to light. I submit the following for your perusal:
''In effect, he's already promised not to do anything outside of these terms
and has also been contacted directly and asked to abide by them last year.
His response to our requests was to get even more outrageous in his posts.
Partly this was our fault, because the letter sent from our National
Director was pretty hard-line. She threatened to suspend his ability to post
which is something we legally have the right to do, but which we can't
follow through on because of programming constraints.''
The Lies, Deconstructed:
''In effect, he's already promised not to do anything outside of these terms...''
Actually, I only offered to ''abide'' by ''standards'', provided first that someone could explain what they were and answer questions that I might have from time to time. My offer of an apology was also ignored. The word ''promise'' is a lie, as is the statement that I was contacted directly. I was not ''contacted'' at all.
''His response to our requests was to get even more outrageous in his posts.''
There was no ''request'', and so the assertion that there was a request from NayAbhorHood Slink is a lie. The addition of pluralizing the word ''request'' makes the lie even more aggravated.
''Partly this was our fault, because the letter sent from our National
Director was pretty hard-line.''
A half-truth, the problem was completely the fault of NayAbhorHood Slink. The ''hard-line'' ''letter'' (actually an e-mail) from National Director Lucretia Rambutch was the refusal of my offer of apology and statement of my willingness to abide by clear standards. Instead NayAbhorHood Slink National Director Lucretia Rambutch stated clearly that my ability to post was permanently ''revoked'' (with no warning whatsoever), and with no means of regaining my ability to post.
''She threatened to suspend his ability to post...''
A blatant lie. As mentioned above, Lucretia Rambutch did not ''threaten'' to ''suspend'', she stated clearly that I was (permanently) revoked.
(Here's the goodie)
''which is something we legally have the right to do,...''
Actually, by accepting money from CPS (in addition to numerous developers) and other publically-funded entities, NayAbhorHood Slink's web-sites are public domain where ''State Action'' is attached, and therefore all speech on the web-sites is constitutionally protected. How they get around getting sued for violating 1st Amendment rights is by persuading unpaid ''volunteers'' to censor protected speech for them. It will make an interesting lawsuit, trying to prove that web-site coordinators are acting in the capacity as ''agents'' for NayAbhorHood Slink and monetary damages can therefore be collected from the for-profit company.
Can AnyOne say ''Ka-Ching!'' ??
''...but which we can't
follow through on because of programming constraints.''
The only truthful thing this woman said. What she didn't say was that Lucretia Rambutch was stupid for trying to impose a punishment she couldn't follow through with and display for all the world the fact that she is an idiot.
''Very few people can write a book, but any drooling retard can burn one.''
''In effect, he's already promised not to do anything outside of these terms
and has also been contacted directly and asked to abide by them last year.
His response to our requests was to get even more outrageous in his posts.
Partly this was our fault, because the letter sent from our National
Director was pretty hard-line. She threatened to suspend his ability to post
which is something we legally have the right to do, but which we can't
follow through on because of programming constraints.''
The Lies, Deconstructed:
''In effect, he's already promised not to do anything outside of these terms...''
Actually, I only offered to ''abide'' by ''standards'', provided first that someone could explain what they were and answer questions that I might have from time to time. My offer of an apology was also ignored. The word ''promise'' is a lie, as is the statement that I was contacted directly. I was not ''contacted'' at all.
''His response to our requests was to get even more outrageous in his posts.''
There was no ''request'', and so the assertion that there was a request from NayAbhorHood Slink is a lie. The addition of pluralizing the word ''request'' makes the lie even more aggravated.
''Partly this was our fault, because the letter sent from our National
Director was pretty hard-line.''
A half-truth, the problem was completely the fault of NayAbhorHood Slink. The ''hard-line'' ''letter'' (actually an e-mail) from National Director Lucretia Rambutch was the refusal of my offer of apology and statement of my willingness to abide by clear standards. Instead NayAbhorHood Slink National Director Lucretia Rambutch stated clearly that my ability to post was permanently ''revoked'' (with no warning whatsoever), and with no means of regaining my ability to post.
''She threatened to suspend his ability to post...''
A blatant lie. As mentioned above, Lucretia Rambutch did not ''threaten'' to ''suspend'', she stated clearly that I was (permanently) revoked.
(Here's the goodie)
''which is something we legally have the right to do,...''
Actually, by accepting money from CPS (in addition to numerous developers) and other publically-funded entities, NayAbhorHood Slink's web-sites are public domain where ''State Action'' is attached, and therefore all speech on the web-sites is constitutionally protected. How they get around getting sued for violating 1st Amendment rights is by persuading unpaid ''volunteers'' to censor protected speech for them. It will make an interesting lawsuit, trying to prove that web-site coordinators are acting in the capacity as ''agents'' for NayAbhorHood Slink and monetary damages can therefore be collected from the for-profit company.
Can AnyOne say ''Ka-Ching!'' ??
''...but which we can't
follow through on because of programming constraints.''
The only truthful thing this woman said. What she didn't say was that Lucretia Rambutch was stupid for trying to impose a punishment she couldn't follow through with and display for all the world the fact that she is an idiot.
''Very few people can write a book, but any drooling retard can burn one.''
