Question for the LO advisory board

[Shawn Juris]

At what point does Jim's baiting and reckless misrepresentation of other's comments become a legal, moral, or integrity issue for this project?

[stephen davis]

Shawn,

La, la, la, la, la, la la.

I........can't........hear........you.

[Kenneth Warren]

The struggle for dominance within the art of constructive dialogue is inseparable from the phanton civic personality that haunts each person who posts on the LO Deck.

Hence I read your own call-out to the advisory board as part of your own civic personality’s game to win the struggle for dominance.

By having a higher order of advisory checkmate placed on Jim, you win the struggle for dominance. I don’t have any sympathy for your argument or tactics. For as I read your post, I see an accusatory finger pointing toward Jim and attributing a broad range of adversarial procedures the advisory board needs to consider, purportedly for the "good order of the project," an order that is good because it might allow you to win the struggle for dominance.

Life is a contest, dude.

Own your will to dominate. Admit you are in a struggle for dominance.

Flame wars are part and parcel of a disputatious free speech project occurring among civic personalities. Speech is a distinctly expressive register of conflict and human freedom.

Kenneth Warren

[Jeff Endress]

At what point does Jim's baiting and reckless misrepresentation of other's comments become a legal, moral, or integrity issue for this project?

Shawn:

The short answer to your inquiry is, "Never". The observation deck is a community forum, where members may express their thought and discuss issues in whatever manner they are best able. Because there in no anonymity on this forum, to whatever degree someone misrepresents, baits, trolls or otherwise puts forth an indefensible or untenable position, this market place of ideas is fully capable of sorting the grain from the chafe. And if your posts are shown to be consistently chafe, they will be given the level of attention they deserve. The Deck is self censoring in this regard, and I would have it no other way.

With that in mind, whenever you have a moment elucidate on Jim's reckless misrepresentations and/or baiting so we can enter that into our own equations when you evaluate the credibility of the writer, and hence resolve the degree to which that poster should be taken as a serious participant in the dialog.

Jeff

[Bryan Schwegler]

Moved to the right thread...

[dl meckes]

At what point does Jim's baiting and reckless misrepresentation of other's comments become a legal, moral, or integrity issue for this project?

I see you are frustrated in attempts to discuss things or argue with JOB.

Sometimes "constructive dialogue" is fun and sometimes it ends in tears.

[Heidi Hilty]

Shawn,
Hmm, sorry to be so late to weigh in - pesky thing, the print issue deadline. Anyway, I don't know what else needs to be said that my eloquent fellow advisors have not already articulated.
When do I think we should do something about Jim O'Bryan? Again, never. There would be no Lakewood Observer, no T-Shirt Museum, no Lakewood Motoring Society, no hundred other great ideas from one of the true visionaries of my generation.
If you don't like what he says or how he says it, then please continue to post your dissatisfaction and construct a supporting argument to augment same; that is what the deck is here for.
Heidi

Disclaimer: I am a lifelong friend of Mr. O'Bryan.