You should implement a democratic system to allow the ideas to be presented but “filed” under categories by other readers. One category would reflect “contribution”. Another could be called “rant” where yet another “does not apply”.

ON the other hand, the news media does their level BEST to put a story line together (including a choice headline) that sends the reader over the top in their thoughts on the matter. Some of these stories are absolutely UNBELIEVABLE, yet they are true. The arrogance, stupidity, and comedy of the principals in these stories are not just entertaining but DEMAND an equally arrogant and comedic response-even sometimes a stupid response.

I write with a full lifes’ experience. I’ve seen the best of man and the worst. I KNOW hypocrisy when I read it, see it, and live amongst it. But when a news organization puts in front of me a news story of a patently dumb act, WHY must I be held accountable to keep the conversation civil?

Obscenities I understand. Personal attacks have no place in the conversation. But when you ask ME to listen to the juvenile drivel of a celebrity (The Tyler Perry Story in Atlanta) whose only claim to fame is his ability to cross dress on TV, and you want me to “contain myself”??? I have a hard time doing that. Hypocrisy, law breaking, and “crying wolf” MUST be responded to with the same level of irony as it was presented. We live in dangerous time now. The Trayvon Martin case is proof of that. But the answer is NOT to hide racial differences or racial opinions under a rock. It either comes out in a venue like THIS or in a venus as was found in Sanford, FL. I have a sharp mouth but it is NOT tainted toward the racial divide of this country, rather toward the racial facts as the appear on the ground.

I believe that organizations likes yours serves a greater good when you let the reader have instant feedback on a story matter. I ask that as you exercise your right to filter the language used here, you err on the side of being a bit on the wild side.

Larry D. Owens, Jr.

Apparently the head of your breaking news department is a “Sacred Cow” whose pronouncements can’t be challenged, which I can understand.

But the one I submitted today criticizing Johnston for (once again) missing the point of the article he is writing, is beyond justification.

I gave up trying to submit comments to any of Ms. Freeland’s articles because it is obvious you will not permit me to comment on what she says, no matter what it is. I also quit reading her articles for the same reason.

———————————————————————————————

I’d like to point out something you are clearly ignoring. By offering to accept comments from readers and then arbitrarily denying them the right to comment is a violation of a person’s right to free speech, as guaranteed under our constitution.

When I submit a comment I KNOW whether it is within your stated abuse policy or not. And you are flagrantly in violation of your own stated policy.

You may want to take this up with your attorneys.

Frankly, given the way you handle comments, I am surprised no one has filed a class-action law suit against you for infringing on their right of free speech.

PseudoTurtle
CPA/MBA

While you seem to have “loosened up” somewhat in terms of your heavy censorship, on some other articles you clearly have a long way to go to achieve what I consider a reasonably balanced viewpoint.

shanghai apartment