Greetings,

From the April 6 Special Meeting and Workshop Meeting:

Three separate articles:

Commissioners Vow to Save 1954 Architecture

The Churchill Demo Memo

New EPA Regulations Will Increase Costs for Pre-1978 Construction

The Glen Ellyn Park Bench

Enjoy

Bench, you are a day late, in Glen Ellyn we put out our garbage on Mondays.

Yes, Concernedin60137 did excellent sleuthing.
Cinderella

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:
Can someone remind me, didn't Bench's identity get outed on here a while ago?

Is this important information to have? Havn't you and shrugged already classified this reporting as "one of the clowns"?

Yes it is important. Bench doesn't like, they can stop posting here.

Ackerman or Shrugged doesn't want to come clean on your anonymity, you can stop posting here. Ridiculous statement.

Rob, your issue is what exactly and/or what are you defending? Since no one has actually objected in this thread to any specific content “Bench” has posted, I can only assume you are defending their right to post defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar and harassing comments about elected public officials/commissioners AND private citizens under the cloak of anonymity. If not, than I’m not sure what your issue is with posts like mine.

What I do object to in this thread and others past, is the manner in which “Bench” posts, under anonymity, allowing for harassment, disinformation and irresponsible statements. Pure act of cowardice.

As to the content in “Bench”...invoking elected officials children to make a point (again) and attacking public citizens that attend public meetings to speak their mind is wrong...for all sides.

That you and others agree with what “Bench” posts is your right, but to agree with the manner in which “Bench” posts is wrong. Ridiculing elected public officials, their children and private citizens by name under anonymity is wrong Rob, sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by shrugged:
... Rob, sorry.

No apologies necessary. I just find it hypocritical that you or ackerman, or any number of people on this board, looked specifically to "out" this person. You can argue the content of the message, but not the method of delivery....unless you want to live by your own rules.

quote:

...harassment, disinformation and irresponsible statements. Pure act of cowardice.

How does this differ from you or anyone else posting their opinions in anonymity? The content is a matter of opinion, but you are conveying, what I feel, as irresponsible statements and harassment regarding the present PD Board and its decisions. You are posting under the "cloak of anonymity".

Ted, certainly, has the ability to restrict Bench's postings if they are violating anything in the TOS. Why would your standards be higher....unless you don't agree with the content.

People know who I am, where I live, who I live with. No biggie.

Rob, I wasn't apologizing. I was merely stating that I'm sorry you defend the likes that ridicule public officials, their children and private citizens.

We've been down this path before, it's boring. There is no hypocrisy on my part, I'm not posting comments about specific individuals by name. Sorry.

Shrugged. Everyone, here, mentions board members by name and ridicules the decisions based on their beliefs. I find nothing wrong in that. What I find hypocritical is that you continue to try and play the high ground when you defend or attach yourself to the same statements.

quote:

Yes, Concernedin60137 did excellent sleuthing. Cinderella

Outing, or repeating the outing of a private citizen is better than Bench's reporting of a private citizen who willfully puts him/herself in the public domain by speaking at a public meeting? Show me how this is not hypocritical.

quote:

your comment that incompetence and ignorance is a lethal combination ...Superintendent of Parks Dave ... Scarmardo.

Commenting about intelligence levels of a non elected employee is better in some way than Bench's reporting of the quoted exchanges between a Board member you like and another PD employee?

I don't have time nor the patience to go and get you more examples. I reiterate; I am not defending Bench nor his/her views. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy and inflammatory statements that are made on this thread are no different than what is posted by Bench. Would it make you more comfortable for Bench to post the report directly to this board vs linking to his/her blog? Would that satisfy your anonymity issue? It would make him/her just another GEBB'r (Probably show up at the BBQ and everything)

If I may intercede--

Although “outing” is frowned upon when originated here on the GEBB, in my opinion this particular “out” was discovered elsewhere on the web.

This thread, devoted to an otherwise important and worthwhile subject, is fast degrading into a personal flame war.

Knock it off, please... and let's get back to posting and discussing facts and opinions about issues that everyone is (or should be) interested in. Thanks! —Ted E.

Ted, just to get this straight. As long as I find out the identity of a poster on this board from a different source than through here, I can out them without retribution?

If I were to perpetuate what I heard from a different source, that is OK? What are the exceptable sources of information on the web that can be used to identify anonymous posters? I just wanted to clear this misunderstanding up.

What was the important topic started that degenerated into a flame war....oh yeah, a posted report from an anonymous posters account of the PD meeting.

quote:

...identity of a poster on this board from a different source than through here

Perhaps. Another public source, such as another web site (especially when promoted on this board) or a local newspaper article.

But remember, there are few hard-and-fast, yes/no rules. Most everything in life is shades of gray, including the “rules” of this message board.

I call 'em as I see 'em, and make judgement decisions as I go along. The internet is a very different place than it was 15 years ago when I started this board, and the people now on it behave very differently than did the early adopters.

I can tell you that one of the things I appreciate the least, and come down on the hardest, is when posters try to push the envelop, see how far they can bend something before it breaks and otherwise test me. Probably the same people who, as teens, drove across the railroad tracks seconds before the train roared through.

As I've said before, the first rule is, “don't piss off the moderator.” The easiest way to tell that you have done so is when you're either put into the pre-approval queue or suspended entirely.

As Walter Cronkite used to say, “And that's the way it is.” Walter Cronkite was a wise man, even if his name didn't make it into spellcheck. —Ted E.

I'd be interested in hearing the facts about why the PD declined to discuss the platform tennis warming hut? Is it because they saw their estimates were all eff'ed up?

With apologies to Ted, and others...

Rob, there is an important distinction between opinion found here and at the “Bench” that one has to acknowledge going forward. This bulletin board is a discussion between private individuals. “Bench” is not a private individual, but a public blog, a product for consumption. As a “public” product it is open to comment and criticism.

The majority of the comments here about the “Bench” and the person(s) who publish it have been levied against the “product” and the way it is manufactured, and yes, by whom. If an individual representing the views of the “Bench” wants to post comments here that is their right. However, with it comes a set of rules and a forum which allows for debate, opposing views, corrections or deletions of inaccuracies for the record. Anonymity unto itself is not a bad thing, it is what is done under anonymity that is the issue. So while many here post with anonymity, there is a method of recourse by others “to set the record straight” or offer different perspectives, and, to have those comments archived for the record. Anonymous comments can be disputed and held to scrutinity. Whereas this BB is a dialogue, the “Bench” is graffiti.

As to hypocrisy...I have not attacked the person(s) who produce the product named “Bench” or comments made here at the BB. I have stated that the product “Bench” is produced with utter cowardice, and used poltroon and coward to describe the product “Bench,” and I stand by that definition, which is: lack of courage to face opposition.

And on outing.. I never introduced any information as to who publishes the “Bench”, but merely followed up on information which originated here. Of the person mentioned, my only comment was “...she has kindred views, if not an identical writing style, of the ‘Bench’.” Hardly inflammatory, never personal. At no time have I named or attributed the “Bench” to a specific person and gone on to cast personal comments about that person or the “Bench”.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from distorting my quotes with the use of ellipses to change their intent and meaning. You are free to distort your own views and quotes, but please stop doing so with mine.

Shrugged...for the purposes of kindness to the other BB members and Ted's sanity, I will agree to disagree with your viewpoints as to anonymity, hypocrisy and your participation in the "outing".

lastly, any distortion of your quotes was meant for brevity, not to change intent or meaning. I think that was abundantly clear.

I would add that the bias of the Park Bench writer is so very clear, it undermines the credibility of the reports. The word choice is really laughable at times. For example, using "demanded" to characterize a request and the use of "disciples" was also excessive, in my opinion.

It seems that this ongoing GEBB debate only adds to the attention the blog writer is seeking. They are clearly stirring the pot and seem to enjoy that, as despite criticism, they continue to link their blog. I am not so sure, however, I would want this type of reporter backing my position. Maybe next month, posters will choose to not comment and the linked post will not be the lead item on The GE Park District forum.

As for outing, I do not recall that this person's name was actually given on the GEBB, but was established through a process of elimination of attendees at a GEPD meeting. I may remember that incorrectly, though.

That is how I see it.

The minutes are contained in the meeting agenda material.

Am I the only person who finds this entire scenario ("the G.E. Park Bench") really funny? It's stuff like this that makes me appreciate our fair town and all the characters who reside here. Heck, where else can you find a citizen who fawns over the outgoing PD board members who just lost the election, and then follows it up with an incredibly one-sided bitter blog that by its title sounds serious and somewhat neutral. But then you read it, and quite frankly --- with all due respect, it sounds worse than stuff I wrote back in high school when I was jealous and mad at Jenny C for dating Steven B after he broke up with me.

And even after being 'outed' - the fun never stops.