IS THERE A DOUBLE STANDARD ON THIS BLOG????
There have been a number of posts by an individual questioning whether there is a double standard in reference to posting on this blog.
As has been stated before the only thing censured on the blog is language. The hope is that people would stay on topic but there is no enforcement nor is there a desire to censure. This new topic is added with the hope other topics can be focused on without the distractions attempted by some posters.
My belief, as I have addressed a number of times already, is that when a person puts something on here with supportive evidence it is a very different matter from just feeling something. I am a plain spoken person and have called some people names based on the evidence I listed with each name supporting that name. So if I have referred to a person as a liar I have included the evidence of the lie told by that person. If I have referred to a person's behavior by some name I have included evidence of such behavior.
The question as I understand it is, am I given a pass for the things that I post while this other person is criticized? My contention is that if a post is supported by clear evidence it will carry more weight than a post based entirely on the feelings of that poster, but you be the judge. Allen Barrett
As has been stated before the only thing censured on the blog is language. The hope is that people would stay on topic but there is no enforcement nor is there a desire to censure. This new topic is added with the hope other topics can be focused on without the distractions attempted by some posters.
My belief, as I have addressed a number of times already, is that when a person puts something on here with supportive evidence it is a very different matter from just feeling something. I am a plain spoken person and have called some people names based on the evidence I listed with each name supporting that name. So if I have referred to a person as a liar I have included the evidence of the lie told by that person. If I have referred to a person's behavior by some name I have included evidence of such behavior.
The question as I understand it is, am I given a pass for the things that I post while this other person is criticized? My contention is that if a post is supported by clear evidence it will carry more weight than a post based entirely on the feelings of that poster, but you be the judge. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 8:19 AM
21 Comments:
Let's look at a scenario that would prove your theory wrong or at least unwise. Let's say that you know for a fact that an individual is having an affair with his wife's friend. You are invited to a cookout and see the man and his wife standing around talking to a group of people. Are you saying that, since you have the "truth" of the matter that you would walk right up to them and tell his wife? I hope you are smarter than that.
Almighty God will be the judge, don't you think?
9:14
What a game player you are. Its so obvious what Mr Barrett is talking about in his topic but you have to twist things just to get a jab at Mr Barrett. I really feel sorry for you.
5:07
Please don't feel sorry for me; I don't need or want your pity. I simply asked a legitimate question that begs an answer. I twisted nothing. In fact, I just rsponded to the thread topic concerning double standards. Why don't you go back and read the introductory remarks and then read what I had to say.
When did YOU become wab's spokesperson anyhow?
I try to speak up for Mr Barrett whenever I encounter you trying to sabotage his blog and ruin any discussion that people try to have. Thats another reason I feel sorry for you.
825 is warped on relativism - no reality - no communication - no contribution to herself or the community. In other words, a real piece of crap with no past, present, or future - simply there to run the mouth & walk the dog of corruption!
Finally, 9:14, you post on topic! I must admit, I was beginning to think that you didn't have it in you. Mr Barrett was pretty clear, but I can understand how YOU missed the point. I do believe that Mr Barrett has consistently brought public issues to light, things, people, and events that involve my and possibly your tax dollars. As I have previously posted on most of the threads, I do not always agree with him and I have never met him personally, but on the other hand, I don't always have the time or frankly the inclination to research issues personally and therefore I appreciate Mr Barrett's efforts to bring issues to light in what I feel is an unbiased forum. (I apologize, Mr Barrett for using personal feelings at this point and I will try and keep it to a minimum.) I do not take Mr Barretts posts as the final word on an issue, 9:14, just as I do not take my minister's words as the true and flawless WORD OF GOD. I have a right, actually a duty, to take the information I receive and study on my own. I may choose to accept or deny what I hear in a worship service and the same goes for what I read on here. That does not make Mr Barrett right or wrong, nor does it make me right or wrong, but if I really want factual information, at least as far as county issues go, I now have a "starting point" with which to begin my studies. I have never read on this blog an "attack" by wab, for lack of a better term, on a citizen who is not paid a salary with tax $$$$, MY tax $$$, and I have never heard Mr Barrett criticize anyone without providing corroborating evidence. Few of the anonymous posts seem to follow suit in that area and most seem to simply jump on the bandwagon of "if wab says it, it must be wrong", or it's sister bandwagon of "let's ignore very real problems and they will go away." We are all free to read or ignore wab's posts as he always signs his name and I find that courageous, at least more courageous than me. And for 9:14 and his/her like- minded friends, I really couldn't care less WHY he signs his name, whether it be for credibility, which I believe is the case or for attention, or for an ego boost as some believe, it makes no difference to me. If a citizen doesn't like it, they are free to take it up with him publicly or privately or simply skip his post. And one last thing, (maybe), for those of you, and I'm guessing, only guessing, who think I am comparing wab's remarks to GOD's word, please rethink that and take some remedial courses in basic reading skills. You would be way out of line in that thought process and frankly quite silly. The only ones who would think that are those whose primary objective is to deflect simply to argue with Mr Barrett and you appear to be of the opinion that by "ignoring facts, you can change facts." (Please note, I did not judge, my comments were prefaced by terminology which indicates opinions held personally by me and not a pronouncement of judgment.)
Have at it now, 9:14 and other like-minded folks,
sincerely, puppet master
9:14 You keep bringing up a person having an affair with someone elses spouse.....are you having an affair with someone elses spouse and afraid someone will tell the 'truth'? You are right, GOD will be the final judge!
9:07 Right on!
No, I'm not having an affair with anyone. I merely posed that scenario because it seemed very simplistic and appropriate in terms of the topic of at hand (double standard).
And, for the record, let me say that I am neither a woman or a piece of crap. But think what you will; I too could care less.
For the record, 12:43, nobody gives a 'crap' either!
5:30 That was a very intellignet post. It is postings like that that keep this blog going. Thank you for your entellect.
5:30
Yes, I too was impressed with your post. And it's precisely posts like yours that keep me coming back. Quite entertaining.
What an excellent an appreciated post from "puppet master" on 27 March at 9:46. Allen Barrett
To anonymous of the 27 March 9:14 post.
You present a scenario, "Let's say that you know for a fact that an individual is having an affair with his wife's friend. You are invited to a cookout and see the man and his wife standing around talking to a group of people. Are you saying that, since you have the "truth" of the matter that you would walk right up to them and tell his wife?", that is about as applicable as a mechanical chicken in a Mule Day parade.
Can you not see that there is a difference in what some individual does as a private citizen and what a very public taxpayer paid politician does? The private citizen, while the behavior may be reprehensible, would probably not have any direct impact on my life, the tax funded politician who is making decisions that do directly impact my life and those of many others is a very different story.
As a minister I have a responsibility to speak boldly, and with clarity about God's Word what it condemns and what it upholds. I do not have the responsibility or desire to tell people how they must live their lives only offer a way that God says is better.
As a citizen I have an interest in seeking responsibility and accountability from those who make laws and regulations that directly impact me and my family and take revenue out of my pocket.
In both positions there is the responsibility to enter dialog where better ideas and possibilities can be explored with a goal of improving things for everyone. I must do what I think is right until proven wrong that is part of my integrity. I'm sorry if that's so hard for you to accept but that's just the way it is. Allen Barrett
wab
Yes, I clearly understand the difference between a public and private citizen. All of us are private citizens, including those who hold elected offices. But just because they hold such offices doesn't give you or me the right to say all manner of things about them or call them derogatory names. I think we have gotten away form a fuundamental question here. I want to know why some people can attack and malign public citizens (those holding elected offices) on this blog and expect a free pass while others can oppose the ones who do it and get accused of attacking private citizens. Why is that? And if there's not a double standard, then please tell me what it is. As for doing what one thinks is right, I truly believe it is right for me to oppose those who say mean and nasty things about others, regardless of what kind of citizens they might be.
Finally, as a "minister", you surely do have a rsponsibility to tell people how they should live their lives but only in terms of God's commandments and plan for mankind.
How can you "clearly understand the difference between a public and a private citizen" and then make such a statement as "all of us are private citizens"?
The reason has been stated by me and WAB and a number of others the difference is in when a person puts something on here with stated evidence and there name as opposed to someone putting something on here anonymously based only on their feelings. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
As for the part about being a minister you missed the most important word he used. WAB said, "I do not have the responsibility or desire to tell people how they must live their lives only offer a way that God says is better", this was very profound and should be the goal and understanding of every minister and Christian. No one has the responsibility or right to tell another how they "must" live only how they can live better.
howard..
According to you guys, any of us who disagree with your mentor and hero and accused of missing the point. Hilarious. I stand by my assertion that a "man of God" DOES have the responsibility to tell others what they "must do" to be saved. That happens to be in the Bible. I think even he would agree with that.
531 I think WAB has done that!
Some aren't worth saving.
Some don't want to be saved.
Some are both! (you)
pearls & pigs?
Rub a dub dub
dummy in a tub
dummy got clever
& pulled the lever
the dirts went away
& so long dummy today
riddler....or is it Mr. Frost..
Why don't you let the minister speak for himself and stop being his cheerleader?
Maybe we should ignore the poster that finds everything laughable or hilarious. A gigglebox should not be taken seriously.
Go ahead. I can't ignore what you guys do; that's why I am here for the entertainment. And why shouldn't entertainment be laughable and hilarious?
6:38 If you want free hilarious and laughable entertainment just attend one of the county commission or committee meetings.
Post a Comment
<< Home