I don't think it would speaking ill of the dead to conclude that the suspect and the deceased would have something in common to be out and about at 5:00am on Saturday morning? It was either work or pleasure.

This is the comment “, Or drugs or women, or whatever goes on at 5.00am. in the hood “. There was no mention of work, just conclusions, without any basic fact.
The man died, however he met his death, is that okay?
Added to all that I had just sent an e-mail to Yamadoopolcat warning him about his conduct, and this is the response ?

In the words of Russell, from Fat Albert:

N/C - No Class.

Do we really need the comments of people like this?

I ceretainly don't need any comments from Yamadoopolcat.

Aside from trying to censor comments for being in bad taste (i am not judging them here), which i do NOT agree with, The point Yama seems to be making is that the person was living high risk (as evidenced by being out and about at that time of day in that area). While it is my opinion that there is little point in such observations and speculation I am more than a little uncomfortable with editorial censorship in this regard.
It has long been standard procedure for posters (not limited to those the editors have chastised) to post 'serves them right' statements with regard to people being killed or injured due to stupidity or just their lifestyle. I dont agree with them but I dont see it as my duty or right to suppress them. As editors perhaps you have that right but i encourage you to use it sparingly. I should hate to think that i can be reprimanded or censured based on my opinions or lack of tact.
It really does take all kinds, folks. That cliche is one because of its relevance. If you are never faced with people's true feelings and attitudes then you learn nothing. I guess i am trying to respond that yes, we do need comments from people like this, as much as we do from PGDriver. If you dont like the comment then disagree and try to set the person straight (politely, of course).
I have been in disagreement with each and every poster on thins site at one time or another. I have never felt the need to have the editor protect my sensibilities or otherwise censor the content in this forum. I believe in freedom of speech, even when it is not to my liking.

More to the point of the articla and comments: It is normal, though without any real virtue, for people to blame victims for their misfortune. It serves to make us all feel more secure in the knowledge that such a tragedy could never happen to us. That, along with our 20:20 hindsight resorts in a lot of finger pointing and blaming, but very little sympathy for ones fellow man.

First of all, unless I've missed some details I'm not sure why everyone is assuming this person led some high risk lifestyle. I used to go for walks at 3am just to get some excercise because of my hours of work. Being out at 5am is not strange nor is it a sign of some ulterior lifestyle. Secondly I'm surprised that you would be more upset about this "censorship" than of the tasteless jokes some "people" were making. We have censorship everywhere, one excellent example is not allowing nudity or overt cursing on TV. It's called common sense. I'll give you some advice that I've been given when complaining about some sites. This is a private site, and if you don't like the way it's run there are hundreds of other ones to visit.

"We have censorship everywhere, one excellent example is not allowing nudity or overt cursing on TV."

LOL, I guess I must have different channels than you do sonny.

Sonny? Yes pops, I was refering to network tv, Not cable. Doesn't change the fact that we censor a lot of things. So this argument is illogical.

In the years since Opinion250 has been around this is the first time I have read an editorial comment naming a poster and what they wrote that was unacceptable. Usually this is done anonymously and we are left to deduce that some action was taken.

The fact is that free speech does have limits and always has. libel is not allowed and has been a basois for civil lawsuits for centuries in all countries. Our own charter of rights and freedoms places a limit on free speech, and legislation mnakes hate speech a criminal offence.

I think Opinion250 bends over backwards to allow as much freedom as it can, but some people do not appear to have the smarts to understand or appreciate that.

It's a shame that a person has met such a fate when our streets should in fact be safe for walking 24/7.

Whoever stabbed and killed Mr. Baker needs to be tracked down, apprehended and dealt with according to the law.

Do we wish that people's comments often were more sensitive and respectful? Of course we do, but nobody is perfect and once the Post Comment button has been clicked on it is too late to undo a remark that with hindsight one wishes not to have made in the first place.

I have seen instances here when posters actually realized that a comment they made was over the top and then even followed up with an apology.

That puts the controversy to rest.

I have to agree with caranmacil. Although the comments are tasteless, they are not a legal threat.

I have to agree with the intelligent and forward-thinking arguments that caranmacil makes. If we are not allowed to hear certain thoughts that people have, how are we to know what they are thinking ?

It smacks too loudly of 1984.

I would much rather know what Yamaman is thinking, than sit there wondering what he is thinking. Even if it is "nothing worth knowing about".

Secondly, it allows the poster to garner a response from their peers, such as "your comments were tasteless" or etc.
This allows the person to get a finger on the pulse of how the rest of society thinks, compared with their own way of thinking.

Lastly, I was even once told by a respected peer, "Shame on you for saying what everyone else was thinking."

A pissing match from the editor is really unprofessional. Intolerance is what starts fights, wars, etc.

thereasonableman said "Intolerance is what starts fights, wars, etc."

and I assume that's why their comments were removed.

Well thought comments from both caranmacil and thereasonableman - thank you for writing so eloquently, to give voice to what I feel about this censorship subject, which has been ignited again.

Some of my comments have been deleted in the past few days, on this subject and another, by the moderators of opinion250.com. While I applaud their efforts to maintain a certain standard for this site, and indeed it is their efforts which encourage me to visit this site numerous times during the week, I wonder to what degree I will be able to "censor" my own thoughts on certain subjects.

This is not the only forum I frequent, nor is it the only one where I have posted my thoughts or opinions. I can say it is the only one where my postings have been deleted by a moderator. Obviously, I have stepped over the bounds, according to the owners of this site.

The name "Vernon Baker", if you read the citizen (in the courts)from time to time, is a name highly recognized. A person who has been in and out of the court system for quite awhile for numerous property and person offences.
Since this is printed fact, what I am stating is fair game in the legal sense of the word.
I am not making a personal attack, however the circumstances of this act are in my opinion highly related to this person's lifestyle and anyone else who choose these roads to travel down.

And there is an associate of his that the police are looking for.

"I was refering to network TV, not cable."

How many so called network stations do you get here that are not on cable?

Have you ever watched CITY TV? How about the French Channels?

"If you are never faced with people's true feelings and attitudes then you learn nothing."

This is very true. So, caranmacil, you then would accept hate speech. KKK. White supremacists. Religious right. Other religious fundamentalists. Men haters. Women haters. Anti semites.

I think that the more one accepts that kind of speech the more one develops a complacency about it and soon it will become the norm and all those people they are against will be rounded up.

I think controlling oneself is a much higher ideal and more difficult for some if not most to deal with. The other is the easy way out. In fact, in my opinion, the other way is anti-social.

Maybe people are forgetting about manners? How about ethics? Why are there such things as manners and ethics?

Just a bit of a reminder to some that may have forgotten what manners are or were.

They are unenforced standards of conduct. They are like laws in that they codify or set a standard for human behavior, but they are unlike laws in that there is no formal system for punishing transgressions, other than social disapproval.

So, when someone calls someone a &*$@ on here, the person basically has no manners and others should be allowed to disapprove of that kind of behaviour.

I for one am all for manners Gus, and i also agree that name calling nd obscenity are not desireable. My opposition to censorship based on 'good taste', however is very strong. Taste is a personal issue and while it has been pointed out that 250 is a private site I feel that its value is greatly increased by its comment forums. I would not participate in the comments if they had to pass muster first. (that, in itself is possibly enough for some of you to vote for such a system :))
I admit that my support of free speech is broader than that of our current government. I do accept hate speech as a persons right. Better we allow some racists to have their say than to start censoring some other people who might actually have a point. One might want to check out the human rights complaints filed against Macleans magasine or Ezra Levants book to see what mean. Certainly hen ones advocates the censorship of groups based on politics (the religious right and other fundementalist religions) we are atarting to go too far towards state control of free thought.

If he came from Alpine Village area, I have a guess which unit he may have been at (a very noisy night owl place)

"This is very true. So, caranmacil, you then would accept hate speech. KKK. White supremacists. Religious right. Other religious fundamentalists. Men haters. Women haters. Anti semites."

Yes, I do want to hear what such people have to say. I don't have to accept what they say, but I do want to know what they are saying, what they are thinking.


I reiterate:

"It smacks too loudly of 1984.

I would much rather know what Yamaman is thinking, than sit there wondering what he is thinking. Even if it is "nothing worth knowing about"."

Correct me if I am wrong but dont some people actually HAVE to be out and about at 5 in the morning for work? Contractors, doctors, mill workers...etc etc. Why is it assumed right away that this person dieD because he was BAD?

I am in agreement with the editor on this one. I do support free speech, when it doesn't promote bigotry, racism or hatred. I believe the editor is witness to what we all recognize as several posters who cross the line of what was referred to as "in good taste" and manners. For many years I've witnessed these posters and their one-line jabs at the less fortunate, at the same time offering no constructive argument or solution to the topic at hand. While some are entertained by these comments and it does spur on retribution, the editor has the right to discourage these antics from the venue they provide. If you were having a dinner party and one guest was consistently making everyone uncomfortable and ruining your evening, would you invite that guest to future gatherings? I doubt that guest would come back disguised either.

Because of the neighbourhood, Shellshadow, although you are correct, how do we know that he was not walking to work?
Ruez; I have satellite tv (no cable where I live) and am appalled several times per week by what I see on the boob tube (boobs aint all!) There cannot be much on television that is censored any more, in my opinion. The 'F' word appears to have become ubiquitous, heterosexuality, homosexuality, they show all but the actual act of coitus, all before eight o'clock in the evening. It all leaves little to the imagination, which in itself is a statement on those addicted to television, and I suppose I am one of the masses in that regard.
metalman.

Got to side with Yama on this one... the need for complete freedom of speech outweighs manners.

Besides, don't you want to know what the others in your community REALLY think? I do. Honesty and full disclosure, in the end, will make for a better community. Allowing one or two people to control what is acceptable speech is called despotism.

There is a simple fix if you are not impressed with TV, whether it is peasant vision, cable, or satellite: The button that turns it on can also be used to turn it off.
Vote for better programing with your feet.

If the advertisers are not getting to their audience because there is nothing worth watching, the station will have to improve its content or lose revenue.

Just wait til the networks are able to charge a carriage fee to broadcasters.

I also understand that not only did they completely switch over to digital, but they are going to stop over the air broadcasting by 2012 or so, by by peasant vision. That will ensure that the only ones being advertised to have adequate discretionary funds because they will be paying for a service to advertise to them.