Echos - "hello...hello.......hello.............hello...........................hello."
In Deaf Echo there is an obvious pro-union article called "Madison, Wisconsin - So This is Democracy: An Attack on Education" which soon gotten my attention and decided to contribute to the discussion offering my viewpoints and opinions. But somehow, somewhere down the line, a moderator decided that I was making "abusive comments" in my responses and comments.
*scratches my head*
Hmmm.
Really?
The funny thing is that no where did I make any "abusive comments." I stated my opinions and concerns. In my own blog I hereby challenge the moderator to back up what he's claiming and point out exactly what and where my so called "abusive comments" are. As for me, I see none because I created none.
Now. I know that sometimes for other people to read what I write it may get their ire or misconstrue on exactly what I'm writing thinking it's one thing when it's not. Hence, the reason why I attempted to explain in Deaf Echo which, obviously, didn't go anywhere.
What I think the problem is that some people are upset because I dared to have a difference of opinion or that I provided links to facts. At least it seems to be that. Bottom line, I see things differently. I attacked no one personally. I made no snarky remarks. I made no emotional, blind rage at any one. Ironically though, some veiled personal attacks against me were allowed. Double standards? You make the call. But all this had me wondering on exactly what bias is being permitted over there. Now remember folks, Moderators have every right to see fit on how to run their own website or blog. That's not the issue here. The issue is the lack of honesty.
Somebody is not being honest on wanting to have a "good discussion." Is it a one-sided discussion the goal or allow discussion from both sides of the fence? Which is it? Will it be driving forward or backward?
This is what one moderator (Bobby) said:
Mike McConnell has been blocked from further commenting on Deaf Echo for repeat violations of our policies. Specifically, writing abusive comments. We do not tolerate this on Deaf Echo. We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.Until the moderator can actually point out exactly which comment I wrote that was "abusive" then that's the challenge for him to answer my call. Otherwise, I think this is a matter of protecting somebody or at least assert some kind of control on what's being allowed to discussed, perhaps keeping it pro-union as possible?? Maybe I'm wrong though the response and action made by the moderator was rather curious. Although I'm not alone in seeing the problem of this so called "abusive comments." Candy agreed that she also saw no abusive comments were being made from me.
I don't see any abusive comments by Mike. Gotta have two polarizing sides to have a good discussions and sometimes some things just don't "drive things forward." I don't see his comments creating a bad environment. Just sayin' Then again, it is your blog.Yes, it is his blog. No doubt. And he has every right to maintain control as he sees fit. Curiously though, no one responded to what Candy said. BTW, thank you, Candy. We can always agree to disagree.
But I think the ban had to do more with the link I provided in reponse to a moderator's "Greedy" picture cartoon he left. And so in response to that I left a link as an attempt to put into perspective the teacher's average compensation package (salary + benefits). The "Greedy Teachers" picture in the link that came with it was not the intention but the figures I wanted to present so readers can be well informed. That is certainly not considered as an "abusive comment." In all honesty, I'm guessing exactly which comments the moderator found "so abusive" to warrant a ban. Curiously enough the moderator is also pro-union as well which could put into question the whole neutrality of that moderator.
No snide comments were made from me.
No snarks.
No abusive comments.
Just my opinions, perspective, understanding, knowledge and facts of the matter at hand. No one wants to see jobs lost. I'm not making fun or light of that, obviously. I don't think people want to see deaf education or any education suffer, I've not hinted at nor made fun of that.
Deaf Echo, let's have the cojones to be honest and forthright than to hide behind some so-called policies and claim that I was making "abusive comments." There is no evidence of that at all. If Deaf Echo doesn't want to hear the other side, then just say so rather than hide behind an excuse!
As for those who attempted at making these veiled potshots at me, let me say this.
What the author wrote in Deaf Echo isn't lost on me on his care for Deaf Ed and his job. No one is saying what he says is unwarranted or to be easily dismissed. I have not made any emotional or personal pot shots at the author nor anyone in that forum. What I provided are some facts to add to my discussion. And, certainly, I am leery of unions as well since we already have laws that protect us and our rights. This isn't 1959 any more.
Next, what I've stated in Deaf Echo is that if the spending problem isn't corrected or resolved somehow at the state level (even at the Federal level!!!) it will soon hurt a lot more of us than we would ever dreamed of. And if Wisconsin or any other states see a 30-fold increase in their deficit increase in two years time then no amount screaming will help to save all of deaf education. We all can see that coming from miles away. ALL OF US. At least that's what I'm seeing now.
I asked in my earlier comments on how can one reconcile that problem and still help deaf education? How can one reconcile with that and compete against others who want to see education remain intact in public schools? And so on? I'd like to see it reconciled but then again reality is starting to bite hard and that has become scary. Just like suddenly seeing your years of abusing your credit cards to such extreme debts do you find yourself in a pickle of a situation that will change your life forever.
What about California?
Their budget deficit is much worse than Wisconsin's. How are they going to eventually face that and even try and reconcile with their deeply red deficit problem and attempt to keep the education system afloat, especially schools for the deaf? And at the same time compete against everything else on what money's is left on the table? Is it a spending problem? Lack of control? Too much control of union bosses or reps? Not enough taxes? Too much taxes? Not business friendly enough? And so on. There are many questions here.
And finally, most people seems to be saying in Deaf Echo that money or job isn't the issue but it's about the retention on their collective bargaining status. But why do some of them keep reverting back to saying, yes, it's about keeping jobs when facing the "chopping block."
Which one is it?
I'd rather have a job even if it means not having health care and other benefits than no job at all that will help keep the money flowing. When it really comes down to it, that would be it. It's about money and control for all of us. It's certainly about the battle for survival and it just so happens that the state holds the purse string and if there isn't enough money to go around, so what are we to do?
And lastly folks, learn to leave the veiled emotional pot shots out the next time. I'm not interested in infantilism. But when it comes to interesting discussion, I'm for that whether you agree or disagree. At least have the temerity to agree to disagree.
