Note To Our Readers
Over the past few weeks, Crucians In Focus has become the primary source for information on a number of topics that are critical to the future of the Virgin Islands. We are thrilled at the volume of public discourse that has been generated and strongly encourage all of our readers to continue the spirited discussion.
However, recently some comments have crossed the line of appropriateness and good taste. There is a difference between harsh criticism and offensive language - and while we take no issue with the criticism we will not tolerate the offensiveness. As such, we have removed the relevant comment and edited responses that contained the offensive language.
We will continue to provide an open forum for the exchange of comments and ideas and assure you that our mission of public vigilance remains a top priority.
Stay tuned.
Loading ...
The truth is only an offense when certain people make comments. It is okay to bash the present Gov, and me. I do not care if you do not remove the insults directed at me;it only shows that you are are being bias.
Homosexuality is found in the dictionary, but the term that I used is not. Who, then defines what is offensive? Words can be interpreted differently.The term that I used could apply to either gender.
I think that it is offensive to call the present Gov. a dictator. Will such comments be removed? Should I have stated that I believe that the former Gov. is a homosexual? This was neither explicitly stated nor implied. How did anyone get this impression when I do not have a clue about his sexual orientation? I mind my own business. What people do in their private lives is not important to me.Further, I know that some heterosexuals are evil.Being homosexual does not equate to being evil.
The former delegates who inserted a definition for marriage or voted for this provision are homophobic; I suspect that some might be closet homosexuals. Is homophobic an offensive term? What makes a term offensive? Are words not found in a standard unabridged dictionary offensive? I call such terms phonies.
Why we so afraid to discuss this topic (homosexuality)? The draft appears to discriminate against homosexuals by defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Why aren’t the drafters not being criticized for being bigots?
It is my opinion that homosexuals should be allowed to be legally married and homosexuals should come out of the closet. The VI has a high rate of AIDS and HIV is rising due to ignorance. Females are in denial and cannot accept the fact that their partners are bisexuals. They need to be educated and realize that we are not all heterosexuals. I do not have a problem with this;I get along with everyone.
Let’s be fair.
I believe that the moderator struck a nerve, LOL. Who the cap fits, let them wear it.
I totally agree with the site managerS, there is a line and sometime we go too far. We are free to say certain things but when we get too personal the line have been crossed. Crucian in focus thanks for keeping the site FREE to voice your opinion, but at the same time keeping it CLEAN!
What kind of hogwash is this? After all the bashing and tearing down this site is known for, all of a sudden Crucians In Focus has embraced a Vatican mentality. Now this is precisely the kind of selective application that relegates entities like this to comical status. In a word CIF, WHATEVER.
It all depends on whether you are a friend of the moderator or whether you are saying something the moderator likes. I personally find all of the references to the current governor being a dictator offensive.
It’s funny that everyone wants to let the delegates poorly written document go up to the president because the delegates were “elected by the people”. The last time I checked deJongh was “elected by the people” also.
The comments that I find offensive are ones like:
Now I Know Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“Indigenous Virgin Islander”:
You need to take your WHITE %&& along with “The Crucian EDUCATOR” and leave. You or your WHITE children were not born here and can NEVER be native to this land. As for “The Crucian EDUCATOR”, she needs to wash her mouth out with Clorox, Pine Sol, Dettol, or anything. NASTY, NASTY, N A S T Y !!!!!!!!!
But that’s what many on this forum want to hear so it’s ok.
In fairness to CIF, I don’t think calling the current governor a dictator can be compared to what Verdel Petersen called the former Governor. You’re comparing apples to sand….no comparison whatever. Verdel really crossed the line.
As for the comments from Now I Know, I agree they are tasteless. It also shows the immaturity of the poster that he/she has to degrade the discussion to insults rather than debating the issues.
Are all postings now being moderated? A posting made several hours ago has yet to be seen. This is unfortunate. However, I can understand the actions of the moderator(s). Perhaps a line-item removal of the objectionable statement or word would have been more appropriate.
But, the site owners are free to do as they please. It’s just a shame that one or a few individuals have stifled the voice of many. Hey! Almost like what the governor did with the draft constitution.
The following was posted in another discussion thread on this site under the heading “Judicial Injustice.” But it was affixed with a message that read: Waiting to be moderated. I decided to try it here.
————————————
It is easy to focus on the AG partially because he is a public figure. However, child support matters can tend to be lopsided, partial, and discriminatory with fathers mostly (and some mothers) being discriminated against.
In other forums on this site, the topic of the draft constitution, the Fourteen Amendment, and discrimination has dominated the discussions. The Fourteen Amendment speaks in part about not depriving citizens of life and liberty. Growing national case law is showing the relevance of this amendment to parental rights. Additionally, case law also speaks to the impermissible interference of the government into parents rights, to the care and custody of their children. However, these are often ignored or misapplied.
Virgin Islands law mentions several classes of people that are entitled to support, to include minor children. However, the other groups receive little attention except removed spouses who are seeking alimony.
The child support system locally and nationally is flawed. But many parents, who are targeted, out of embarrassment or ignorance, do not challenge the system. Moreover, some of these parents provide support over and beyond what has been mandated without their efforts being recognized or credited to child support.
One irony is that parents who pay child support are hardly viewed as loving and caring parents who willingly support their children. Instead they are seen as villains who are being forced to pay. Many onlookers think: They must be deadbeats. Why else would they be paying child support? This is a false premise.
Child support cases are often begun out of malice, bad break-ups, and out of an “I’m going to get you attitude.” This poisonous attitude can flow from the custodial parent to the child resulting in impaired relationships with the other parent.
On another point: How do the “needs” of a child change based on the income of a parent? It doesn’t! But the system says, if you income increases so should your child support payments. This is nonsense. This creates an atmosphere of greed not of need.
We have heard that it takes more than money to raise a child. However, the system focuses primarily on money.
Don’t judge a man or woman until you’ve walked in his/her shoes.
Ten Again: Our blogging software is linked to a 3rd party service for spam protection. There have been, and will be, legitimate comments inadvertently tagged as spam, just as one might experience with their email provider. Since the site launched, the aforementioned service has blocked 11,728 spam comments from being posted to this site with a 99.853% accuracy rate.
We have since approved your comment since a cursory glance didn’t reveal anything offensive in it. Your comment wasn’t the first legitimate comment held as spam and unfortunately, due to the nature of the internet, it won’t be the last. Thank you for your participation on this site.
The timing of this position at this juncture is amazing. The attacks launched here on Redfield and issues relative to his wife were tasteless to say the least and had nothing to do with the discussion at all. I’m wondering if the possibility of lawsuits is the catalyst behind what was ‘allowable’ and is now ‘offensive’. Transparency? I Don’t Think So.
Daily News Reader:
Sorry, but the rationale behind this position is clearly stated, and was not predicated on any impending legal threats. The site cannot control whether bloggers stray from the stated topic – personally, I’d prefer that the irrelevant references to race would disappear – and the site gives me the oportunity to state that view if I so choose.
This mission of this site has been, and continues to be, to provide a watchful eye on all things VI. With that comes the responsibility to monitor and, when necessary, remove comments that strain even its’ flexible limits.
And unless I’m mistaken, that’s the first time it’s been necessary, so any assertions that there was some motive other than the stated one are invalid. I commend the administrators for their action.
So don’t fret. This site will continue to post information and commentary that will give you something of substance to read when you’re done with the expanded comics section.
Daily News Reader, we’re glad you’re tuning in!!
Daily News Reader, I assume the comments you are referring to regarding Redfield and/or his wife are comment #11 under “Redfield Voices Position On Constitution”. If that is the case, you clearly didn’t read Verdel Petersen’s comments.
The discussions here are no different to those on the daily talk shows, with the exception of Sam Topp who hosts his show under very strict guidelines. Ever listened to some of the discussions on Roger Morgan’s show? Race is constantly brought up and there have been conversations that took strong racial positions against “whites”. I am a black man and those conversations still made me feel uncomfortable. Nonetheless, the host allows those discussions to continue. On the contrary, if Verdel Petersen called Roger’s show and said what she said in her comments that were removed, I guarantee you Roger would terminate the call.
On another note, I would love for you to write the Daily News and tell them just as they wrote regular editorials on previous administrations they need to do the same on the present governor. Just take a look at the list of people on the editorial board. It was previously 2 people writing daily editorials before the purchase of the paper, now it’s more than 10 people and they can’t even write a weekly editorial. Why not? Maybe because they want to assure another 4 years for deJongh? Be consistent.
Why is the comment by Born Here not offensive? This blogger made a nasty remark that sounds libelous. The coward denigrated Redfield, instead of responding to his editorial concerning the proposed constitution. Shouldn’t such trashy comment be removed?
Ms. Petersen, I view Born Here’s comments as taking a cheap shot rather than discussing the issues. You hear that regularly on the talk shows when a person can’t debate on the issues. You carried it to another level. Too bad the moderator removed your comment because it seems like you don’t remember what you typed. In any event, my previous message says all I need to say on this topic. Goodnight everyone.
Busted:
I respect your opinion and I am not at all upset my post was removed;just disappointed.
Please be informed that I do recall exactly what was stated. If it was offensive and the website deemed it necessarry to remove it, I do apologize. Frankly, though, it was a surprise that such action was taken.It was my understanding that since I used my real name, the administration of the site could not be held liable for any damages.Further, the standard of decency in my mind is not the same as that of legitimate broadcast media. Review other blogs and tell me if my assumpotions are not valid.
As you have alluded, insults and racial remarks can be heard regularly on the airwaves. The moderators of radio programs have a legal obligation to comply with
Please disregard any grammatical or spelling errors in my above post. The message was accidentally sent before I had a chance to proofread and edit it.Here are the final sentences:
The moderator of radio programs have a legal obligation to comply with FCC rules. There are specific words that cannot be uttered on the airwaves. However, there are certain forum that allow persons to express themselves regardless of how foul the language is. I honestly thought this site was such forum.
Again, if we are all required to have a sanitized commentary, the rules should apply to everyone. It is obvious that the decision to remove my blog is arbitrary.Nevertheless, I’ll try to practice what I preach and will not stoop to the level of other bloggers. I am no angel, but I will focus on issues rather than personality.