September 11, 2011

SandBox Comments: Red State "I Am a Real Democrat, Therefore I Now Vote Republican "

Excellent, excellent opinion by 'colegrayson'.  Out there somewhere in avatar land. Take the time to read the entire piece.

(posted by avatar colegrayson)

"I had the distinct pleasure of watching the GOP candidates debate, and I learned something shocking.  They are not, despite the New York Times propaganda, crazy.  They are diverse, intelligent constructs of a party that allows for free thought, unlike dogmatic liberalism I now renounce.  But fair warning, I am Pro God, which by liberal definition means I force Him into the faces of others.  I am against 12 year olds signing off on their own abortions, which means I despise women.  I believe Herman Cain agrees with my beliefs on minority empowerment, so he too must be a racist.  Even the now wilted specter of Michelle Bachmann, successfully castrated by a viciously sexist question in the previous debate, was not any sort of boogeywoman.  What we had was an intelligent thoughtful exchange of ideas.  Some of these ideas may not work, and others have merit.  Cain’s thoughts on taxation I found intriguing but impractical, but hey, at least it was an idea.  A freaking idea.  But wait, other ideas reared their head as well.  Ideas like using military drones to track illegals, (Governor Perry) support of a guest worker program (Speaker Gingrich) and of course there was Mitt.  Poor Mitt.  He would have been a great 60′s Republican.  Today he would be better off as a Democrat.  But he is a good fella and a smart man, so he has a place.  Just not in the White House..."

(Learn more?  Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

SandBox Comments: Aspen Times/Letters to the Editor "John, you chose low wages"

We don't track origins on SandBox. 

We could care less who you are, what your IP is or what you want to call yourself. 

There is absolutely no relevance, except personal gratification and ego stroking for anyone from journalists to elected officials to powerful people who want revenge, in our knowing that kind of personal data on an avatar in commentary. 

In our area, there is also the documentation of actual harm coming into lives of the people who speak up over local issues; we care a lot more about protection of those brave voices than we do for the perpetrators that cause the harm.

SandBox goes to lengths in order to protect the anonymity we hold in trust for others.  The many, many identities we have come to know has come about because they are people who are of strong enough moral character to find out the truth and then allow their own personal trust grow.    To us, protecting their trust is sacred.

In our view, the only thing that matters publicly is the validity of the comments they make. 

That is one of the reasons why SandBox Nanny uses the highly effective tool of posting news that has already been made.  It is impossible for even the very powerful to retract either the truth once it has happened (or) disinformation spun by an agenda to hide  those truths.  Actually, the tactic is one that has been around since the time of Sun Tzu.  Move swiftly through unprotected ground.

What we do track are search phrases that find us.  Keywords. Analytics.

When we first started SandBox in July of 2010, we were stunned at how often Swift Communications reporters, editors and publisher not only checked in on SandBox Commentators but used every keyword search imaginable attached to their names.  Over a year and a half later, we are astounded at how persistent they are in still tracking themselves....

The hostility towards us back then was not only palpable, it was shocking.  'Somebody' did not like the little guys empowering themselves in defense.

As the false stories and disinformation grew stronger in their Members Hub, the banning and censoring increased to the point of literally banning local authorities and professionals who are avatars, while the editorial staff at the PI claimed these anonymous souls they were banning were 'imposters'. (whisper...whisper...not to mention what an oxymoron the PI's choice is....whisper...whisper... "ban" "anonymous imposters"??!... what's up with that....whisper...whisper..)

How incredible is it, in this day and age, that any "professional" in the business of public relations and also in the service of trust to the public would act, in very public ways, like they were still in high school and either believe or participate in anything unverified and also so morally reprehensible?

By letting individuals like that, who have no qualms rolling around on such levels  (especially effective when allowed to collectively reveal their personal choices) simply continue to reveal themselves; we rose to rapid popularity and success with SandBox Commentators. 

"trapping" those reveals in a three-sided blog(s) that is really nothing more than just a daily diary of public news and opinion; SandBox Commentators has also managed to break a pattern of abuse in the region.  By simply doing nothing at all except log a daily diary.

There has been no halt to the manipulation of public opinion by those angered at us for not cowering back into submission.  That manipulation is still out there and being done now to legal authorities.  Eventually, as the sticks get bigger and the staying of the course gets tougher and higher up in legal authority, they will be stopped permanently. 

Until then, we take pride in seeing the steady increase of voices raised against all kinds of things. 

Like openly confronting  a bully named John Colson. 

"Dear Editor:

As I read your column (John Colson, “Poke that bully in the nose,” Sept. 4) today, I kept thinking about how I'm personally offended by so many of the articles you write. What bothers me more than your liberal philosophy each week is what appears to me to be self pity and disdain for people like me..."

(Bill Schaffer, Aspen)

(Learn more?  Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."