Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘Enough Is Enough’

February 16, 2014

To The Reader’s Forum: On January 17, 2014 the Surgeon General (SG) released his report on tobacco use in conjunction with the 50th Anniversary of former SG Luther Terry’s initial report in 1964....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(79)

Jhwinnyc

Feb-20-14 7:55 PM

Wow! I'm agreeing with 50s on two counts: the 2:10 here, and that camo and flannel are not "appropriate attire," for funerals, weddings and for city and county legislators at meetings. (see "Staying Classy" article today.) Put on a suit!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-20-14 2:10 PM

What if we ran under the forum instead of the letters? It seems a never ending "chat" about three subjects pretty much. Surely a fewcan write up something without malice? As much as I disagree with Em or a couple others, I respect their right to express. Just one thing irritates me beside the button....using "bigot" and "hater" so freely. And you all know what happens when you punch my buttons. ;o

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jhwinnyc

Feb-20-14 10:26 AM

Maybe the PJ will give itself a "thumbs down" on Saturday :)

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Yankees1

Feb-20-14 9:14 AM

I agree with Emelye, the PJ has the right to pull comments and even inhibit the ability to comment. It is their website and they make the rules. However, with these opinion pieces and letters to the editor, the ability to comment has always been the norm. The last four days the PJ has not only pulled the comments that had already been posted from four letters, but it blocked the ability to comment all together. It’s not a coincidence that the four letters all dealt with the same subject matter either. I think the PJ owes its readers an explanation.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-20-14 8:43 AM

I must have missed a lot of comments. But you have to admit certain people pounce on certain names. Another might say the same thing with impunity.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Feb-20-14 12:02 AM

"In Our Opinion". "Letters to the Editor". Must means, if you agree with the local censors.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Feb-19-14 11:31 PM

Seems the PC crew is running this forum. Very sad.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-19-14 8:56 PM

Not enough.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jhwinnyc

Feb-19-14 7:23 PM

Lone: two posters from the LEFT who regularly hit the abuse button? How many times in the last few days have YOU had posts pulled?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SanFran

Feb-19-14 6:38 PM

There is no need for censorship in this country. Censorship can go both ways. Gays have battled it for years and we are finally winning the battle

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RLMorrison

Feb-19-14 6:07 PM

Given that mentality, I suppose they would spend much time gloating over having won moral superiority. Stand fast.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Feb-19-14 4:51 PM

who cares whether it's illegal or not it's still censorship.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RLMorrison

Feb-19-14 4:49 PM

I suspect if one was a paying subscriber their case might receive more attention. I don't know if it would be worth the effort of contacting a higher office. It would be much easier to log off, and leave those few with no audience but the choir to gloat with?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RLMorrison

Feb-19-14 4:34 PM

I'm quite sure they also state that the posts may not be reviewed and weighed before removal. It seems there is a problem with the system protocol itself. It can easily be abused.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Feb-19-14 4:13 PM

Freedoom of speech is not being violated when the PJ removes posts and stifles commentary. It may be hypocritical but it isn't illegal censorship. The only censorship that's actually illegal is when the government does it. Since no government actors are doing anything of the kind, the 1st amendment doesn't apply.

The Ogden/PJ is within its rights to censor what it sees fit on its websites. But neither does it mean it is immune from criticism and action from people who disagree. There are other venues to criticize than just there forums.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RLMorrison

Feb-19-14 4:10 PM

I think the terms of service agreement for this membership allows for removal of anyone who inhibits the rights of others and doesn't discriminate when it comes to who is doing the name calling and personal attacks. I never saw anything about it only being instituted to silence one point of view.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-19-14 3:26 PM

lol...I had posts pulled from days ago on other letters. monkey's back. Did you know "-----" is offensive and can be removed? Why do we bother?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Feb-19-14 3:23 PM

agreed. economic issues should come before social issues.

am i the only one that finds it ironic that the comments on the recent same sex marriage letters have been disabled?

freedom of speech? freedom of the press?

the post journal is actively participating in censorship.

shameful!!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Feb-19-14 3:19 PM

Seems the PJ likes to print letters about homosexuals, but doesn't like it when there's a disagreement regarding the content of the comments. Perhaps they should stick to important topics like the economy. Afganistan, unemployment, terrorism, NSA spying, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, etc.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-19-14 3:03 PM

What happened? I was away. Too much dissent on the new letter?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

Feb-19-14 6:30 AM

At least our posts were in response to the letter, not a different letter in your paper that did not allow posts.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

Feb-19-14 6:29 AM

PJ, I request that you reinstate the posts written in response to this letter by me, FedUP and 50's.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Feb-19-14 12:13 AM

Think of it this way, poorpockets: If Greg Rabb had sent in a letter pointing out that the promotion of Jamestown as a heterosexual marriage destination was a good thing, would he then have been promoting heterosexual "bed preferences?" When we see wedding announcements in the PJ of young heterosexual couples, are they proclaiming the greatest thing in the world screaming out their preferences? Hardly! So why is it OK for people like you, poorpockets, for heterosexual people to talk about their marriages but when LGBT people mention their marriages it becomes some kind of promotion of sexual preference in your mind?

Maybe the supposed focus on physical sex when LGBT people talk about their marriages is all in your mind? I'd say that's the case and I wonder if you might question why that is?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Feb-18-14 1:44 PM

Agreed 50s

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-18-14 1:39 PM

Anybody who wants to be vilified dog. I'm glad they shut down. It not only proved my point, it saves me a lot of searching for retorts to ugly enablers. Have a good one....

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 79 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web