Friday, December 3, 2010

Why some comments never show up

From time to time a reader will ask me why I don't post all comments that are submitted?

Here is the latest:

"You gutless, spineless, man. You selectively post only SOME comments. Time and time again I have sent items and you see fit not to post them. Does it scare you like the big bad Sheriff did in the parking lot?

"I have spoken to many others that say that they too have sent in comments that never appear. I have called you out on this before. Face it Gus, I'm right more than you and it burns you up. In the community you area (sic) a laughing stock. I have been to meetings where you are openly mocked. How does it feel to be the brunt of people (sic) jokes?"

What he should have said is "meetings inside the McHenry County Sheriff's Department".

I was immediately reminded of my favorite book title: What You Think of Me Is None of My Business.

It's easy to explain why I don't post all comments. It's my blog.

I didn't always moderate (screen) comments. When vulgar, profane, libelous comments and comments that constituted the felony of cyber-stalking were submitted, that's when I changed the rules.

9 comments:

Mike said...

Gus wrote: "When vulgar, profane, libelous comments and comments that constituted the felony of cyber-stalking were submitted, that's when I changed the rules."

While I cannot speak to all of the comments which you've "moderated" (make that censored), I know that more than a few of mine that did nothing other than point out the fallacy of one of your particular arguments never saw the light of day. They were neither vulgar, profane, nor libelous and they certainly were never threatening or cyber-stalking. They were, I will admit, quite often "in your face" but then for you to criticize anyone for posting such a comment would truly be the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't it. I and many others have called you out numerous occasions and rather than answer the question or defend your untenable position, choose instead to deflect and take the ad hominem shot of "you hide behind a screen name" which adds nothing to the argument. You would still be wrong whether the poster's name was John J. Jingleberry or "CrackPot."

OTOH, you seem to have no problem repeating libelous comments or otherwise promoting the rants of others who offer up unsubstantiated trash as "truth."

That you would actually have the gall to republish and promote the ravings of David Bachman and his claims of a hit man hired by the sheriff shows either your true colors or your lack of intelligence. How many times does "Chicken Little" have to claim the sky is falling with absolutely NOTHING - not even a rain cloud forming - before you wise up? I guess it's not a question of wising up, it's a question of whose ox is being gored. I doubt that you'll publish this since it's "so threatening," vulgar and libelous but I know at least you're going to read it - as will others, eventually.

mark beeson said...

I'm sure it's safe to assume that these people do not use their real names while being out of line. I am tired of all the gutless angry people with nothing but fighting words to say, but then there I go being myself somewhat of a hypocrite. At least you know who is talking here. I dare some of you to post your opinions as real people rather than pathetic cyber ghost. Gus is real , WHY don't you be real. Are you afraid you might be met in the jewel parking lot.

Gus said...

Mark, thanks for your comment!

Casper said...

This is like a buch of thought posted under one heading.

I can see where emotions may run high over this issue of blogging. Currently the big issue seems to be
Seiplers firing and Gus Philpot’s dislike for the Sheriff. Now I see references to the Dirty Keith blog and a hit man which I am still trying to figure out. Zane Seipler seems to name names and say some dastardly things about employees at the Sheriff’s Dept.

Months ago I spoke to some deputies and the ones that would talk indicated to me that this Zane character is untruthful so I don't give much weight to anything he prints on his blog. As a citizen, the part that I find disturbing is that the courts seem to ignore the base issue which is issuing tickets to people that didn't deserve them. That issue appears uncontested but has fallen through the judicial cracks. Where are the rights of the public? Why must we as tax payers keep dishonorable employees on the payroll when in this time of high unemployment, there are many that would love to have this job and give honest work? I would have liked to be a cop but now I’m way too old.

Locally or in the Daily Herald it was written that another deputy was suspended for three days so Zane should have been suspended for three days. The article detailed that the other incident was situation where a driver was given a choice by the deputy what ticket to be given and of course chose one that was less serious. The deputy bent the rules and gave the person a big break and got caught. Stupid, but the driver did commit the crime he just got a break. The fired deputy (Seipler ) actually let an unlicensed guilty driver go and gave the ticket to a passenger. I’m not an expert but it seems to be an illegal act by the cop. That is not disputed. The issues seem totally different to me. I can't even come up with a scenario in my own job where I could make some false report or turn in false documents and not be fired. In my mind Seipler should not be a public servant.

Lastly this Dirty Keith blog. I went to the link and the pictures and info seem like someone else basically said it being like the Twilight Zone. The reference to the Jewel parking lot is confusing. Maybe the blogger can write an explanation how these things are related. The Dirty Keith site has images of people hung from trees and burned houses. Seems too bizarre to be taken seriously. Maybe someone with better abstract comprehension skills can pull this together for me.

Gus said...

Casper, thanks for your comment and questions here.

Let's see if I can help.

The deputies who would talk would, wisely, only support the sheriff's position. To do otherwise would put their jobs at high risk.

You'll find many deputies who, like Zane, are upset with all the things that are wrong at MCSD.

The issue in the courts is not what Zane did. That issue has been settled. The arbitrator ruled that the sheriff punished Zane excessively. This is one of the issues in court.

Unfortunately, there are many less than honorable employees at MCSD. And there are many honorable ones.

About the Dirty Keith blog. It's hard to imagine that the author would write such accusations, if they were not true. According to that blog, a deputy with close ties to the sheriff has broken the Code of Silence. This is very rare.

The incident in the Jewel-Osco parking lot appears to have been pure coincidence. As I stated previously, I am now even happier that I made a full and immediate report to the Woodstock Police Dept.

Shea said...

I read the blogs occasionally but read the local papers daily. To many points I disagree. I laughed when I read the acronyms in Justin’s post. Very crafty, however it seems to fly in the face of your assertion of, “when vulgar, profane.” Anyway I loved his post. You should repost it as it is gone. I need a chuckle. I find reading comment keeps me returning. If you fail to post their comments, even if aimed at you, you discourage readership.

You (Gus) said “You'll find many deputies who, like Zane, are upset with all the things that are wrong at MCSD === the issue in the courts is not what Zane did. That issue has been settled. The arbitrator ruled that the sheriff punished Zane excessively. This is one of the issues in court.”

I see this entirely differently. Any man that is empowered with the authority given a deputy should use that power judiciously. It is blatantly obvious that Mr. Seipler violated the most basic tenants of this public trust. Whether or not some arbitrator ruled that the punishment was too severe was an expected outcome. Any person familiar with the process of arbitration knows that arbitrators are very liberal and generally rule in favor of the defendant Ruling too often in favor of employers is killing the golden goose of arbitration. Unions and labor attorneys select arbitrators based upon favorable or unfavorable decisions. Rule against labor too often and there goes the golden egg. In my readings, Mr. Seipler is only the one that continually fights the department and continues to name deputies by name in negative tirades. His own blog site seems childish.

Being a devout libertarian I see McHenry CO as a one party county not worth my energy to intervene. I do however follow the elections closely and feel that Nygren did not have any negative ads during the campaigns. The other candidates seemed to only have negative ads. Nygren did have the incumbency, so everyone including you attacked him. The election is over, yet it appears that Seipler still will not surrender his flag. The deputy named in the other blog with this alleged information, was working in the Democratic Sheriff candidate. I then find it as no surprise that his name is used. I doubt the deputy wanted his name exposed. I guess the blogger figures he is fair game since his candidate lost and now other tactics are necessary to upset the apple cart. Whether it is true or false that he has knowledge of wrongdoing is something that will shakes out later. I have seen some wild accusations leveled by the writer of the Dirty Keith blog which have been totally false. I think he loves attention and sensationalizes interest by making these unbelievable accusations. I suggest people ignore his specious accusations until Federal Authorities actually sustain or deny the rumors. Repeating them or referring to them only discredits anyone involved.

Gus said...

Shea, thanks for your comments.

I didn't know Justin's post was gone. Thanks. I think I saved it and, if so, will publish it where he can't delete it again.

I do post many comments that disagree with my articles. I delete many that are submitted anonymously, but which are attacking of others.

The arbitrator ruled in Seipler's favor because the sheriff meted out considerably harsher punishment (termination), compared to three-day suspensions of other deputies for similar or greater offenses.

Nygren was trying to get rid of a whistle-blower.

You wrote, "The election is over, yet it appears that Seipler still will not surrender his flag." There is no flag for Seipler to surrender. He is fighting to get his job back, plus he has a civil rights lawsuit against the Dept. over his firing.

I don't think the other blogger, who writes the Dirty Keith vs. Dirty Harry blog, writes anything because Mike Mahon came in second in the election.

Notawannabee said...

I guess I missed Justin's post. Come on Gus, where is it? Vulgar, profane? I love something naughty.

Shea,
Specious accusations, what are your thoughts on many of the Woodstock Advocate's wild accusations?

I think this is going to get interesting. The poker table is going to thin out as players start throwing down their cards. You can't hold them forever, either raise, call or walk away. I hear Kenny Rogers singing in the background, 'know when to run'.

Gus said...

Justin's post was to a different article and is still there.

See it following the article titled "Halloween Morning Wreck - more (or less)" on November 22, 2010.