The Observation Deck

Charyn,

Thank you once again, for dramatically illustrating the difference between the low road, and the high road.

Daniel Slife

Ivor - does Jim admitting it happen qualify as proof? If not, please let me know what your standards of proof are - I am quite curious. To those of us who spent time trying contribute only to find that our posts were somehow gone soon after they appeared it is an important issue.

He admitted? I didn't read anything about him admitting that posts were over-written.

According to the dictionary, edit means...
ed·it:
1)
1. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
2. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
3. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.

2) To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).

3) To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing.

4) To eliminate; delete:


hmmmm.......so over-writing and deleting and changing are all part of editing. I've written stories for publications and sometimes my stories aren't at all the same as they were when I turned them in. Although the words are different, the message stays the same.

my version of proof is before and after.

I'm out.
Peace Ya'll

Charyn Compeau wrote:DL - I am not alleging anything. I stated what happened - Jim stepped up and provided an explanation of how it happened.

Regards.
Charyn

Thanks for immediately bringing the problem to my attention so something could have been done to retrieve your original posts or mitigate the problem.

I have been reading this thread since Friday and finally feel ready to chime with my own opinion. When I first started contributing to the Observer Project I had never met Jim O'Bryan. As a relative newcomer to the community I have contributed my expertise on the one thing I know well, high school sports, which i realize most of you are not that interested in. Other than a Lakewood Observer t-shirt I have received nothing, nor do I want anything from Jim O'Bryan. With that being said, I have worked with other small newspapers before and know the time commitment that arranging for content and advertising for a newspaper entails. I also know that overseeing a active message board and a ever changing web page also requires a steady commitment of time.
I don't agree with much of what is said on the Observer Deck, in fact many of views expressed in the Global Discussion section make me ill. However, I have great respect and admiration for the people who make this project possible. To those who wish to challenge the ethics and integrity of the Observer project, which indirectly is a challenge to all of US who have made the project what it is, my words of advice are as follows.

Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press 560 years ago and Al Gore allegedly invented the Internet almost 40 years ago...if anyone wishes to create something bigger, better and more democratic than the Observer project...in the words of Toby Keith "It's time for a little less talk and alot more action"

OK - this is my last here - flame me all you want afterwards

Sharon, how can we question the posts in a clear manner if your methodology is irrational? As Ivor notes, you cite unverifiable evidence as one basis for the publisher’s dismissal.. Evidence that, somehow, YOU can call forth from the mists but WE cannot refute. This is an illogical position, one that I'm confident most readers of this board will quickly spot. It’s not hard to spot… somebody’s got an agenda

Dan:

(1) I have no idea why my post appears twice - I will delete the second one, but why attack me afterwards - and then tell me I am taking the low road? interesting. I have never attacked anyone on this thread. I actually make a case that there no moral ethical or legal issues here.

(2) My ONLY issue on this thread was the fact that Ivor said that no posts were ever changed and this is simply not true. You say I cite unverifiable evidence and therefore you cannot refute it? How about the words of Jim and DL on this thread itself (IVOR - pay attention here is the piece you say you never saw):

JIM:

Charyn

Every-time it has happened, by accident. On the moderator level the edit button is directly next to the quote button, next to the delete button.All within about a half an inch. I have on 5 occasions that I know of hit edit instead of quote.

DL:

Charyn-

To my knowledge, several posts were accidentally deleted last year.

I would hope that their words would be proof enough.

However, to ensure that you are completely satisfied, I will post specific quotes from when some of these things occurred:

Jim O'Bryan

Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:01 am
Posts: 3066
Location: Lakewood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe

The point is that only you and Mark have anything edited or deleted and that was by me by mistake.

dl meckes

Replies: 53
Views: 6399
Forum: Lakewood General Discussion Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:20 am Subject: What the!!!!!! It seems that yet another of Mark Crnolatas's posts has been accidentally overwritten.

Now please stop accusing me of misrepresenting the truth, or of having an agenda. I dont have an agenda other than to point out when something was incorrectly stated. Period. I asked once and Ill ask again that we leave this topic to die and to that end I will not respond again as I think it is doing more harm than good. If you need more proof for yourself search the archives. It is all there.

Ivor - split the hairs and provide all the Merriam Webster quotes you like. I didn't say EDIT because the connotative issue with edit in this situation is that it implies that the editor has an agenda I do not believe that happens, I did not believe that happened, and I would not use that word to describe it because I wouldn't want to imply that it happens. Proof before and after? Before were my words, after were Jims with a completely different ideas/thought/message. Proof enough yet? edited? no. Changed? yes. Its really not that hard to grasp.

DL -There was a conversation between yourself Jim and I regarding missing posts. You stated there was too much time and not enough specific information to retrieve a post that we were unable to find. After that I had a post overwritten (and actually Jims writing g and siggy were imbedded with my name as the author) but I had been offline for at least that overnight period you spoke of in your original post so I didn't see any point in telling you (I think it was even longer but not sure). I deleted Jim's entry and left the post blank. The other times I know of were not my posts so (a) I wouldn't have known something happened at the time it occurred and (b) not my place to report it as I don't know the history of the situation.

Here are the posts I could find regarding the prior situation:

Jim O'Bryan

Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:08 pm
Posts: 3066
Location: Lakewood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charyn

Have DL looking for the missing post that has gone from the board. I am sure it will be in the back up

dl meckes

Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:05 pm
Posts: 1107
Location: Lakewood
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charyn & Jim-

Hate to tell you, but back-up usually happens at the end of each day. Even so, sometimes not everything can be restored. Since I don't know what it is I'm supposed to be looking for, that needle is more difficult to find.

So as you can see, if you were not informed it was because there was not point to getting you involved in something that couldn't be changed.

I have to say I am really surprised at these responses. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking in the mirror and saying yes, something happened that I regret. I accept it, own it and can move on. I understand that I/we/it is not perfect and that's ok as long we as we are are honest about it.

Always,
Charyn