I would like to know how I would get my blog listed on the list of members off site blogs? Also can the blogs listed also include nonpolitical content?
Hamish: What's the url for your blog? I did a quick search for your name but didn't find it. Re: 2nd question: What site did you have in mind? My general response is no, if a site had no apparent relevance to democracy (open to appeal) I wouldn't link to it.
The main difference between 'bloggers' and people who make forum posts are that the latter are people we don't know that well yet. You might have noticed that a couple of the forum posts have been front-paged for periods of time.
We have our eye out for talent and we will be adding more named bloggers very soon.
If anyone wants to 'apply', by all means mention it to us by feedback if you like, but the most important thing is contribute and engage. Please don't alter your point of view to suit us, but there's no harm in watching your spelling and grammar and keeping to a more-or-less orthodox style and language.
I hope that over time there are quite a number of us, with a variety of specialities and points of view.
You know mate, I really have a problem with this point of view, cos I think it's not very "democratic." I think, "Watching spelling, Watching grammar" is a rule imposed by whoever, which cuts out a lot of people who might have something to say, and something to contribute!
And asking for a "certain style" of typing is really being forced into what we as Australians are being forced into! Comply or else. So how "Democratic" is this?
I have a confession to make. I just censored a comment. I won't say who it was from or who it was addressed to but it said in full, "Addressee, you must be one of those three sisters, right. There was Cinderella and the other two were ugly with faces of sandstone."
I don't think the debate has been tampered with by me deleting it, and respect to the person who posted it.
You got your own name right.
You named yourself as a censor, I didn't.
Maybe you should brand that name on your forehead so you don't forget who you are.
Wolf, why does editing equate to "cuts out a lot of people who might have something to say, and something to contribute"? Editing does not have to mean censoring - in the context of YourDemocracy it generally means 'make readable'. I appreciate that there might be circumstances where out-and-out censorship was used (for example, if someone tried to post a link to a porn site), but this is not what anyone is talking about here. Even you refer to "Watching spelling, Watching grammar" - not censorship. Do us all a favour mate, and try to get your head around this! Your constant attempt to make editing mean censorship is getting boring.
Dear David, Editing simply means to me to change the content or intent of a message, a film, a news report etc. This has become a very real thing in the media here in Australia and overseas. The people are shown what they should see, not what they need to see, to have a real opinion, and I don't think the intentions of this website are the same (or are they?)
And please, don't try to patronise me. If I am boring to you, just leave, and you will never have to read again what I write.
Wolf , thanks for the clarification. However, you don't actually deal with the point. Where has it been said that people's opinions will be 'cut out'? Has anyone's opinion been cut out?
Wolf, from your own mouth, you've just demonstrated that you're talking about censorship! Editing does not necessarily equate to censorship, and, as has been made clear in the stated editorial policy of this site, here the main reason for editing is to add clarification, not to prevent people' thoughts being aired.
What is so difficult to understand? How does incorrect spelling contribute to the debate on democracy? Can you point to any examples of where the meaning of what you've written has been changed? I certainly haven't noticed you complaining about that.
Or when you say, "I don't think the intentions of this website are the same (or are they?)", do I detect that you now believe the editing on this site is different from that applied to the (mainly Murdoch) press in this country? And that, as the editors have shown, the editorial policy is working just fine? If you believe that the editorial policy on this site is OK, then why not come out and say it?
And, yes, without patronising you, people who continually harp on about something, which they're just plain wrong about, are boring... That's just my opinion, which no doubt applies as much to me as to you, and, if I may remind you, you're all in favour of people expressing an opinion.
Having said all that, let's also discuss what might be a sensible policy if someone continually posted adverts for breast implants, penis extensions and Viagra in their comments. I would vote for that to be cut out, unless it was done specifically in the context of furthering the debate about democracy, and I can't quite see that somehow. What would you suggest?
Members off site blogs
I would like to know how I would get my blog listed on the list of members off site blogs? Also can the blogs listed also include nonpolitical content?
Hamish: What's the url for your blog? I did a quick search for your name but didn't find it. Re: 2nd question: What site did you have in mind? My general response is no, if a site had no apparent relevance to democracy (open to appeal) I wouldn't link to it.
Bloggers
The main difference between 'bloggers' and people who make forum posts are that the latter are people we don't know that well yet. You might have noticed that a couple of the forum posts have been front-paged for periods of time.
We have our eye out for talent and we will be adding more named bloggers very soon.
If anyone wants to 'apply', by all means mention it to us by feedback if you like, but the most important thing is contribute and engage. Please don't alter your point of view to suit us, but there's no harm in watching your spelling and grammar and keeping to a more-or-less orthodox style and language.
I hope that over time there are quite a number of us, with a variety of specialities and points of view.
How democratic?
You know mate, I really have a problem with this point of view, cos I think it's not very "democratic." I think, "Watching spelling, Watching grammar" is a rule imposed by whoever, which cuts out a lot of people who might have something to say, and something to contribute!
And asking for a "certain style" of typing is really being forced into what we as Australians are being forced into! Comply or else. So how "Democratic" is this?
Censor Strikes
I have a confession to make. I just censored a comment. I won't say who it was from or who it was addressed to but it said in full, "Addressee, you must be one of those three sisters, right. There was Cinderella and the other two were ugly with faces of sandstone."
I don't think the debate has been tampered with by me deleting it, and respect to the person who posted it.
Good call
What sound does a Comment make as it hits the bottom of the can?
Sweet music.
Exercise those rights, moderator.
Dear Censor
You got your own name right.
You named yourself as a censor, I didn't.
Maybe you should brand that name on your forehead so you don't forget who you are.
Why does editing = censorship?
Wolf, why does editing equate to "cuts out a lot of people who might have something to say, and something to contribute"? Editing does not have to mean censoring - in the context of YourDemocracy it generally means 'make readable'. I appreciate that there might be circumstances where out-and-out censorship was used (for example, if someone tried to post a link to a porn site), but this is not what anyone is talking about here. Even you refer to "Watching spelling, Watching grammar" - not censorship. Do us all a favour mate, and try to get your head around this! Your constant attempt to make editing mean censorship is getting boring.
Dear David,
Dear David, Editing simply means to me to change the content or intent of a message, a film, a news report etc. This has become a very real thing in the media here in Australia and overseas. The people are shown what they should see, not what they need to see, to have a real opinion, and I don't think the intentions of this website are the same (or are they?)
And please, don't try to patronise me. If I am boring to you, just leave, and you will never have to read again what I write.
So stop confusing editing and censorship!
Wolf , thanks for the clarification. However, you don't actually deal with the point. Where has it been said that people's opinions will be 'cut out'? Has anyone's opinion been cut out?
Wolf, from your own mouth, you've just demonstrated that you're talking about censorship! Editing does not necessarily equate to censorship, and, as has been made clear in the stated editorial policy of this site, here the main reason for editing is to add clarification, not to prevent people' thoughts being aired.
What is so difficult to understand? How does incorrect spelling contribute to the debate on democracy? Can you point to any examples of where the meaning of what you've written has been changed? I certainly haven't noticed you complaining about that.
Or when you say, "I don't think the intentions of this website are the same (or are they?)", do I detect that you now believe the editing on this site is different from that applied to the (mainly Murdoch) press in this country? And that, as the editors have shown, the editorial policy is working just fine? If you believe that the editorial policy on this site is OK, then why not come out and say it?
And, yes, without patronising you, people who continually harp on about something, which they're just plain wrong about, are boring... That's just my opinion, which no doubt applies as much to me as to you, and, if I may remind you, you're all in favour of people expressing an opinion.
Having said all that, let's also discuss what might be a sensible policy if someone continually posted adverts for breast implants, penis extensions and Viagra in their comments. I would vote for that to be cut out, unless it was done specifically in the context of furthering the debate about democracy, and I can't quite see that somehow. What would you suggest?