March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« The single most important post, ever | Main | RUCO »

Aug 05, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ed Cone

Noted conservative-basher John Hammer was confused by the presentation, writing, "Thompson said he had over 100 incident reports from this year of men looking at pornography at the library."

I'd heard this but didn't have it on record yet: "Thompson didn't add that he had checked with Neerman minutes before the meeting because a fellow councilmember had told him it would look terrible if he was suggesting that this change be made to the way libraries are run without consulting the library director."

The presentation was a disaster. Wade's inaccurate remark did not help. Rehashing it at this point just seems cruel to Thompson. Time to make some lemonade from the lemons.

Anthony

""Thompson overstated the scope of the problem...." How so, Ed? You keep saying that but never state where and how?"

He overstated it by claiming that there were 60 or more incidents of porn/indecent behavior in the past 6 months (the 60 comes from our earlier exchange if you'll remmeber). That conflicts with the numbers Ed got directly from the library (was it 18 I believe? Somewhere around there). One of those numbers is right, and one is wrong.

Tim

honestly im tired of all the politics. Its getting in the way of council doing an effective job as city leaders. Thompson needs to go. I know Diane Bellamy Small and Robbie Perkins probablly don't care to much for him.

Spag

Anthony, he never said what you claim. Never.

Ed, just because Hammer is wrong (as anyone who watches the video can see) that doesn't excuse you.

Earlier you wrote "Reasonable questions now include: how big is the problem, and what else if anything should we do about it?" Then you wrote "we need to assess the actual scope of the problem".

So even though you don't have the answer to the "scope" issue, you feel confident that Thompson overstated it (whatever it is). Sheer brilliance.

Say it "I was w-w-w-...."

glenwoodobserver

The criticism of Thompson, as is that of any council member, is fair game. There have been several observations, Hammer included, that support that he bungled this motion. And then there have been several observations that the issue of viewing porn at the library is a valid one - reinforced by left, right, and center on the comments. The discussion should center on the "how" to accomplish this. Danny suggested filters...The city attorney seemed to think this could raise some free speech issues as does the City librarian. Other people have suggested stricter responses to those caught viewing porn. Other people have suggested rearranging the computer cubicles among others. This is the discussion that Ed is suggesting is worthwhile as do I. Did Danny's motion bring this issue to the forefront - yes. Kudos for him, pat on the back, an 'atta boy' or whatever.

But it really is the job of City staff to make recommendations to the Council as to what the different possible remedies are to reduce porn viewing and what the risks and benefits are. If they then choose porn filters knowing full-well the cost in dollars and cost in reduced access for valid research purposes, then that is their prerogative. Danny's initial directive focused solely on filtering software is emblematic of the micro-managing that, if memory serves correctly, was one of the problems people voiced about the last council. He may not have intended it to come out that way, but it is absolutely fair game to judge him on how he is doing his job. If Spag and others don't like it, it doesn't really matter.

glenwoodobserver

How did Mr. Thompson not overstate it if the number show that there are fewer incidences in the first 6 months of this year than there were in the comparable time last year?

Anthony

"Anthony, he never said what you claim. Never."

In the other thread you agreed with my assessment of those implications of his words, saying "that's fair Anthony".

Anthony

Actually I stand corrected. It was earlier in this very thread that you agreed with me, not in some other thread. Sorry.

Spag

Anthony, you wrote "So if 60 reports out of those 100 dealt with lewd or indecent behavior, including but not limited to surfing for porn, then I'd say he was accurate..." that specifically did not limit it to porn and what I agreed with was that 60% would constitute a "great majority". Thompson NEVER said 60% were surfing for porn.

Anthony

Sam, my more recent comment - the one you suddenly take issue with - didn't limit it to porn either. I said "porn/indecent behavior".

cheripickr

This is getting SO Taboresque.

Spag

Anthony, I think the 18 figure was porn only.

I agree CP. It could easily be brought to an end with the words "I was wrong".

Brandon Burgess

What would Ed saying "I am wrong" prove"? That he doesn't feel Thompson was grandstanding, even though he does feel that way? Are we debating facts or feelings here?

I'm sure Thompson is more concerned with moving toward resolution rather than focusing on how Ed and John Hammer feel that his original approach was inappropriate. Did anyone email Hammer yet and tell him how much he sucks for bashing a conservative? This isn't the first time he's done it either. He's bashed Knight in the past while praising Skip Alston. I see a pattern. Clearly the Rhino exists only to discredit conservatives.

cheripickr

By the way, did anyone ever obtain the elusive unedited smoking gun video that was going to prove Tabor's guilt?

Brandon Burgess

Good try at deflecting attention away from Spag's nonsense while he is drafting a hate letter to John Hammer for not praising Thompson.

cheripickr

Deflect, moi? But I thought you were all over it dude,(or is it ace). I was just hoping for a little followup since you were so intensely invested in that one. You've been awfully surly and suspicious lately. Take a break!

Amanda

If folks care to know what is in those security reports, but don't care to read the 200 pages themselves, I have posted something on the Inside Scoop blog. http://www.news-record.com/blog/55399/entry/96216

The discussion here is good. I hope it continues at city council.

Brandon Burgess

Must not take the bait...

I think Spag needs help with that blog post slamming Hammer and Cone.

Thanks Amanda. Just what I suspected. Thompson probably didn't even read through the reports. At least he was "courteous" enough to talk with library staff a few minutes before his show.

twitter.com/caramichele

From Inside Scoop:

"...21 reports dealt with the viewing of inappropriate websites. Along that same ilk (i.e. icky behavior you don’t want to deal with in a public place) were a few incidents involved a person who was believed to be masturbating and one couple was found in the middle of a sex act."

Those kinds of incidents, I've heard about from library guests.

"Other kinds of bad behavior were much more prevalent than those related to sex or pornography. Less prurient but still antisocial, there were about 30 reports of disorderly conduct, fights or assaults. Then there were tons of folks caught in the library asleep, drunk or eating food. Some were even banned, according to the reports."

From what I've heard from library patrons and law enforcement, I assumed that non-sexual bad behavior, or just sad behavior, would be the big winner.

I appreciate the efforts of library staff to address behavioral issues of all kinds. I am grateful for and impressed by their ongoing efforts to serve and care for the homeless people who hang out there. I'm still pro-filter. It seems to me that there are lots of well-intended folks tackling this issue, and that the best course would be for everyone to work together to fight the problem, and avoid fighting one another.

CP, you're welcome. :)

Account Deleted

Not completely unrelated is this nice video of the library director speaking extemporaneously about computer usage in the central library, complete with images of computer users in the background.

Anthony

So, while the total number of porn AND indecent behavior incidents appears to be more than 18 ("21 reports dealt with ... inappropriate websites ... a few incidents involved a person who was believed to be masturbating and one couple was found in the middle of a sex act.") it sure sounds like *way* less than 60.

So there's your overstatement, Sam.

However, your insistence that we not limit the discussion to the viewing of porn makes me wonder something - how in the world is filtering software supposed to prevent people who are engaging in indecent behavior that's unrelated to the viewing of pornography?

Ed Cone

Amanda, your N&R post is typical liberal media mush, what with its "facts" and "numbers" that make Thompson's thick stack of papers look like a stage prop.

30 reports of disorderly conduct, fights or assaults? Not sure how you filter that.

twitter.com/caramichele

So, no takers on "can't we all just get along"?

Spag

Brandon, notice how Ed never answered the questions I posed earlier...or not. That's up to you. The whole idea that this isn't about Danny is ludicrous considering the disparity between what it was claimed that Danny said and what he actually said.

Anthony, Danny was only referring to viewing porn and never said the word "majority" as Ed claims. That is an outright falsehood. I don't know why you are hung up on the number 60 considering he also never said there were 60.

Ed, my first set of admissions to you. "You" means Ed Cone. You are required to admit or deny the truth of the following allegations:

1) Danny Thompson said that the stack of papers ALL represented viewing of porn at the library.
RESPONSE:

2) Danny Thompson said that the MAJORITY of documents in the stack of papers represented viewing porn at the library.
RESPONSE:

3) Danny Thompson said "But many of them, a great majority of them, and I have this right here, are the incident reports of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate web sites."
RESPONSE:

4)Looking at inappropriate websites may be indecent behavior but indecent behavior is not limited to looking at inappropriate web sites.
RESPONSE:

4)Danny Thompson said "and a number of them, as I said, involve people viewing pornographic web sites at our Greensboro public library."
RESPONSE:

5) 21 is a number.
RESPONSE:

6) Erich Segal got it wrong. He meant to write "being Ed Cone means never having to say you're sorry".
RESPONSE:

I'll be filing my motion for summary judgment next. You can't win unless you make stuff up. You can however admit you got it wrong. That would be a first.

Jim Langer

CP- I know the filters in some places of education (not where I teach) do block several works by Courbet, Schiele, Klimt and other older masters. I suspect they do an even more thorough job blocking Paul McCarthy, Eric Fischl and Jeff Koons, acknowledged contemporary artists.

Art is my field,so ifyou thinkits BS that's because you don't have the same depth of familiarity with these artists and others, such as Judy Chicago's table full of labia called The Dinner Party. It is housed at the Brooklyn Museum, finally, after 35 years of wandering. So if they preserve .org sites for museums, it is safe. Not necessarily true for some of the artists I have named and many others.

I don't hold it against you or anyone that doesn't know these works. But having access to them should be an option for a free society.

Brandon Burgess

Now I'm waiting for Cheri to get on to Spag for being so involved.

From Hammer himself:

-----"Thompson said he had over 100 incident reports from this year of men looking at pornography at the library."-----

But that doesn't bother Thompson's fan club even though Thompson never said that.

Account Deleted

Cara: I like to get along with people.

Jim Langer

I'll amend that: if, as the Supreme Court outlined, local communities find that particular imagery is deemed obscene, usually requiring some sort of public hearing at the least and occasionally resulting in lawsuits and juries (the so-called "Mapplethorpe case" in Cincinnati), specific imagery can be denied for public display. Of course, are individual computer screens "public display"? I think so, but someone may argue otherwise.

The problem with filters is that they don't deal with particular imagery or even sites. I understand, and I actually do believe it is still up to the community to influence the kind of images they might allow on screens. I don't live in Greensboro,so any suggestions I am making are not meant to be a personal demand. I am only pointing out what would be likely lost. Such art may be exactly as offensive to the vast majority as any image from Playboy. Some may be even more so to many. But, it has been accepted as art at very high levels. The Supreme Court's language indicated the work must have no redeeming artistic value. Condundrum: for whom?

Anthony

Sam,

"Danny was only referring to viewing porn and never said the word "majority" as Ed claims."

This is ridiculous. From Danny's remarks, as transcribed by Michele:

"But many of them, a great majority of them, and I have this right here, are the incident reports of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate web sites."

Unless Michele transcribed it wrong, he said "great majority".

"I don't know why you are hung up on the number 60 considering he also never said there were 60."

The number 60 is what we both agreed, earlier in the thread, would constitute a "great majority" of 100 total incidents.

Anthony

Wait Sam, you even repeated that "great majority" quote in your own comment. What are you getting at? That the "great majority" didn't refer just to porn, but also to indecent behavior?

I agree. However, the N&R post said in addition to the 21 porn incidents there were "a few" related to indecent behavior. "A few" is about three. Certainly not the 39 you'd need to make up the difference between "21" and a "great majority".

And again, how exactly are internet filters supposed to curtail indecent behavior unrelated to viewing porn websites?

Michele Forrest

I'm still hoping for kumbaya, but I have to say, Sam is winning "Best In Show" for his last comment. I'm still laughing. (No offense, Ed.)

P.S. Sorry for the multiple personalities. The Twitter login (caramichele) is the only way I can comment from my phone.

Michele Forrest

@Jim: I think I have PTSD just from reading that "art" title. I feel like I need to repent for reading it. If "high level" means being abandoning civility, then I'm quite content to stay low. It's also ironic to me that sexual content in art is considered to be the province of the sophisticated and cultured, but that's really about naked emperors, pardon the pun. I'm sitting here thinking of some of the true gentlemen in my life, who are uneducated, unrefined, ex-offenders -- the kind of people that "high level" folk likely wouldn't consider associating with. And yet, not one of them would even consider allowing a lady to be exposed to sexual "art" (or sexual language, for that matter). So much for community standards, I guess. (Whose community?) I don't say any of that to offend, truly, and I'm sorry if it's coming off harsh. I'm just kind of shocked, and saddened. It's a strange world. And as Miss Jackson famously said, "I'm not a prude, I just want some respect."

@Jeffrey: Thank you. Two is a start. :)

Spag

Anthony: "What are you getting at? That the "great majority" didn't refer just to porn, but also to indecent behavior?"

That's right.

Is Ed going to answer? Tick tock, tick tock...

Don't count on it.

Roch101

"But many of them, a great majority of them, and I have this right here, are the incident reports of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate web sites." -- Michele transcribing Danny Thompson

The great majority of them were NOT for those things. Thompson exaggerated. Only 22 out of 190 were for viewing inappropriate sites and even that is problematic in that we do not know what criteria the security guards use in deciding what is "inappropriate."

The "great majority" were for other incidents, with the most being for sleeping.

Roch101

"What facts or numbers did I get wrong, genius?" -- Spag

"19 out of 100 is almost 20%." -- Spag

There were 190.

Anthony

Sam,

"That's right."

Ok, then as I pointed out in the rest of my comment:

"...the N&R post said in addition to the 21 porn incidents there were "a few" related to indecent behavior. "A few" is about three. Certainly not the 39 you'd need to make up the difference between "21" and a "great majority"."

As Roch said, the "great majority" were related to neither porn nor indecent behavior.

And again (and again and again), how exactly are internet filters supposed to curtail indecent behavior unrelated to viewing porn websites? Are you going to answer? Should I count on it?

cheripickr

Oh boy.

Roch101

"Anthony, Danny was only referring to viewing porn and never said the word "majority" as Ed claims. That is an outright falsehood." -- Sam Spagnola

Thompson (video, about 01:47:15): "Many of them, a great majority of them, and I have, this right here are the incident reports of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate websites."

I think you owe Ed an apology.

Michele Forrest

"The 'great majority' were for other incidents, with the most being for sleeping."

Wow, I should write a blog post on that. Homeless people sleeping at the library. Because you know that's who that is. That's sad behavior, not bad behavior. The new day center needs to have a big nap room.

Spag

Roch's stupid argument only works if one overlooks the words "indecent behavior" in those quotes from Thompson.

A smart person would realize that the phrase "from indecent behavior TO looking at inappropriate websites" indicates that the two are separate things.

Therefore the "great majority" would consist of ANY combination of both.

Danny never used the word "majority" in referring only to porn which is what Ed implied.

Therefore, I don't owe Ed an apology.

Maybe he will admit or deny my previous questions some day, probably around the same time that Roch admits that Barack Obama must also be a bigot when held to the standards of argument that Roch imposes on conservatives when discussing the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. I've been waiting over a month for that.

Definitely a month. Definitely.

Spag

Anthony, on the substance of your post about filters. I don't have the answer because I haven't looked into it. I favor as much openness and the least amount of restrictions as possible. One solution may come if the government requires all porn sites to register as ".xxx" extensions. That would help filter a lot of pure porn.

I really thought the topic was what a jerk/incompetent Danny Thompson is because that's pretty much the way Ed set it up in each post.

In fact in today's newest post, Ed admits there is a consensus that people shouldn't be looking at porn in the library. Strange because Danny was attacked by Ed for raising the issue and advocating a way to prevent that from happening.

Hmm.

Roch101

"Roch's stupid argument only works if one overlooks the words "indecent behavior" in those quotes from Thompson." -- Spag

Math is not a "stupid argument." The total of both is 29 -- still not a "vast majority" of 190. You said Ed committed an "outright falsehood" in saying Thompson had described these as a majority. Ed was right. You are wrong.

cheripickr

Ed..GOOOODD!!!;... Sam..BAAAADD!!!

Jim Langer

Sorry, Michelle. The title is simply a dinner party. I suppose the clinical (not really sexual??) language is what threw you. If being entirely medical helps: "The word "lip" can be traced back to the Indo-European "leb" which also produced the Latin "labium" from which came the French "levre." The German "lippe" is just a slip from the English "lip."

Maybe these are all Freudian (s)lips.

Chicago's work is considered seminal in feminist art. Not liking it is cool, though. I don't preach for individual art works, just standing up for those who would like access to study and consider it. That doesn't make anyone a better person. My dad has a technical license in mechanics, and I think highly of his mind and heart. But not everyone has to choose the path of less reading and exposure to ideas from many perspectives. It is apparent you and others participating here, like me, want a varied dialogue.

glenwoodobserver

"Strange because Danny was attacked by Ed for raising the issue and advocating a way to prevent that from happening."

Keep reading what you want to Spag, but no one was attacking Danny for raising the issue of unacceptable behavior at the library. It was HOW he did and that he focused on a singular solution of filters. He wasn't advocating a way to prevent that from happening. If his original motion would have passed, it would have become city policy to install filters on all library computers - a policy decision with unknown fiscal consequences, unknown legal consequences (don't we have enough lawsuits in this city), and unknown social consequences. But I guess a conservative wouldn't be concerned about wasting city dollars on unworkable (maybe) technology and defending itself in lawsuits (potentially.)

Seems it takes a village to help Spag with his memory.

Roch101

I understand getting nervous while speaking publicly but, in addition to his last minute call to the library director, another indication that Thompson hadn't thought this through very well was his initial motion, that "We institute blocking software devices on our public library computers whereby access is denied and not able to be accessed." Thank goodness that didn't pass.

Glenwoodobserver is right. This is not about discrediting a council person with whom we have agreed and aligned in the past; it is about his clumsy, deceptive, ill considered and myopic approach to this particular issue being an objectionable way of doing business on council.

Michele Forrest

"It is apparent you and others participating here, like me, want a varied dialogue."

I do appreciate it. :)

Spag

"It was HOW he did and that he focused on a singular solution of filters."

GWO, I see no problem with HOW he did it. That's what Ed is complaining about. I would agree that examining his solution is fair game.

But to pretend that the bulk of criticism hasn't been about Danny's solution but Danny himself at least in the posts by Ed is simply Ed Cone ass-kissing. He even posted a picture of Danny. Then when one looks at the video and what Danny actually said, it doesn't match up to Ed's criticism. Then suddenly Ed wants to talk about the solution proposed by Danny and pretend he never went after him.

He never answered my questions. He isn't going to because his answers will prove my point and he knows it.

I don't need to rely on my memory. I can simply read what Danny actually said and compare to Ed's posts.

Spag

Sorry Roch, keep digging.

Ed said that Danny claimed the majority involved looking at porn. Not porn plus something else, just porn. That was untrue. Danny never made that claim.

Quit now before you go over the edge like you always do.

eric

"Chicago's work is considered seminal in feminist art."

Intentional or not, that's a wonderful joke!

The comments to this entry are closed.