Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Series of Exchanges About Article the Shingle refused to Publish
-----Original Message-----From: Ian Lowden [mailto:ian.lowden@shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:29 AMTo: flyingshingle@shaw.caSubject:
Dear editor: I am enclosing the last article (or letter to the editor whichever you wish - I am reasonably sure you will find some reason not to print it) that I will be sending you as I find I can no longer stomach your insistence of propaganda over truth. I had my doubts about you from the first when you said your goal was to produce an objective, un-biased community newspaper as you where proudly a "NEW NDP" and I haven't met one of those yet that is capable of distinguishing between truth and the party line; but to be fair, I decided to wait and see-who knows you could have been the exception that proves the rule. However, you have evidently decided that being a "Laytonite" is the only truth acceptable (somewhat like a southern Baptist -you don't need facts you have faith). I may be the first to abandon ship but I know I won't be the last as even some of your loyal staff (and you don't seem to understand that loyalty only works if it goes both ways) are feeling very uncomfortable with the way you have decided to go with what used to actually be a newspaper. Some of them are feeling more than a little deceived, and frankly, I think you have lost your credibility with most of this community. As for helping Cliff I think the turnout at your rally speaks for itself - when 99% refuse their support you can pretty well assume you have destroyed his chances. It is truly a shame that you are so locked into an unquestioning follower mental structure that you don't even think about whether you are helping or hurting someone like Cliff or the community itself. However, I think you will find that Zealots are pretty quickly dismissed by people, especially islanders, who by and large do think for themselves. However, all that aside, you really should check out the articles you print as I found one of them had been plagiarized almost word for word from a source on line, except for one paragraph. This should have been self-evident to you if you had bothered to stop and think. Regretfully, working with you has not been possible, as you don't really work with anyone; you think they work for you. I won't be phony and wish you luck, as I don't. So even though I very much doubt you will print my article as either my last column or as a letter to the editor, I will just say good-bye and hope you have an epiphany someday before you screw up even more people. - Ian Lowden (ianlowden.blogspot.com)
Hi Ian and Derek,
Ian, I understand from Derek that you also sent this letter – and I presume your article – to the Sounder, so I am including Derek in my response.
As you know articles for the Shingle have an 800 word limit, and the Shingle does not allow personal attacks of community members. The article you sent me is 967 words long not counting the headline, and will also require a bit of editing regarding personal attacks. If you choose to make those alterations I will publish your article.
I will of course publish your letter to the editor, but require that you tell me which article you are alleging has been plagiarized, and provide proof if you want that allegation to be published.
I am sorry that you feel so angry, but I do understand your decision to stop writing for the Shingle.
Regards,
Chris Bowers
Editor/Publisher
The Flying Shingle News Ltd.
381 Spruce Ave.
Gabriola Island, BC
V0R 1X1
P/F: 250-247-7987
editor@flyingshingle.com
www.flyingshingle.com
Cut the bullshit Chris - you have no intention of publishing my article as either a letter to the editor or as my last article. As for 800 words - that is a very convenient new rule as you have published articles and even editorials longer than that. As for personal attacks I don't believe my article contains any, just a criticism of your propaganda over truth policy - so what is it you identify as "personal attacks”? You print plenty of those! So if you aren't going to publish it because you are afraid that many of the community will agree so be it - it along with your refusal to publish it will get out there by relaying it through many people's contacts via e-mail and flyers so it is still your own credibility that suffers most as within a couple of weeks everyone on the island will know about your flimsy excuses. As for printing my letter - the article was my letter, the other part was just an explanation to you. As for providing you proof of plagiarism I believe you should be quite capable of figuring that out yourself - you do after all claim to be computer literate and should know how to do a search and quite frankly I have no intention of doing your job for you - it took me 8 minutes to find the source of the article you presented as new. I don't know whether you think you can control the Sounder or not but even if somehow the sounders new owners where to give you that right my article will still get out there. Your choice not to publish it will just strike everyone as cowardice.
I think Derek will have to make up his own mind whether he wants to cover for you or not, especially as it will get out anyway. You keep deluding yourself with your own importance. Why would Derek cover for someone and refuse to represent views other than yours when you are doing your absolute best to steal his advertisers and drive him out of business? If Derek had issues about thinking my words are personal attacks I would listen to him - from you it is just a predictable response. Some of your staff have already told me that you would not publish it under any circumstances - so after this you will have to say - The Shingle will present any community members opinion that the editor endorses". Do you really think that Derek is dumb enough to join that kind of censorship and for what? Do you think so well of yourself that you think he is trying to make the Sounder a clone of the Shingle, and that he shares your every opinion. Several islanders - including some of your advertisers have already seen some of my article and without exception are pleased that someone is willing to stand up to your manipulations. So I will also include Derek in my response to you. If he sees a problem then I will listen but all your objections appear to be specious and self-serving. You really should take a look outside your narrow circle and see how people are viewing you and what you write and what you choose not to include. Or is it you think attacking Layton's little soldiers is personal - if so re-read your Dear Gord columnist which most people think sucks as much as your dear gabby.
Derek, my offer remains open, if you think my article goes over the line between criticism of a paper's policies and content and into personal attacks let me know which parts and where and I will endeavor to work it out with you. As far as I (and others who have reviewed this) see it is an appropriate response to the Shingle and to my ex-brother-in-laws hate mail, which was, a very personal attack but Chris chose to publish it anyway. You can't have it both ways Chris, just because you want it to go away. Many more people will question your credibility for not publishing it. Either way you lose. You just got to figure out which way is going to damage your credibility more. You control the Shingle but that doesn't mean you can control what Islanders think, no matter how much you wish you could. As I have said before, my article is the only thing I want published and you know it is not the little explanation to you, once again you just try and obfuscate between a personal note and the article, and before you tell me that you can't publish the article as a letter to the editor because it exceeds 250 words let me remind you of how many times you have broken that rule when it was something you wanted to publish. And don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting I break it down to 250 words. You really are such a phony, you try and hide behind rules that you break all the time, it seems the rules are only there to help you justify not printing what you don't like - and that kind of thinking is exactly what separates a community newspaper from a manipulative propaganda sheet. One last thing, don't pretend to be sorry that I am angry, it is your anger you have to deal with and don't pretend you understand why I will no longer write for you, you don't really understand that either. So go ahead and publish it - you can always spend the rest of the paper trying to tear it apart, which I am sure you would enjoy as you like tearing at people who don't have access to defend themselves, it seems to be your thing, no wonder you couldn't cut it as a counselor-for the same reasons you won't make it as a publisher, you can't see past your own little walls let alone be able to empathize with any view other than your own.
Dear editor: I am enclosing the last article (or letter to the editor whichever you wish - I am reasonably sure you will find some reason not to print it) that I will be sending you as I find I can no longer stomach your insistence of propaganda over truth. I had my doubts about you from the first when you said your goal was to produce an objective, un-biased community newspaper as you where proudly a "NEW NDP" and I haven't met one of those yet that is capable of distinguishing between truth and the party line; but to be fair, I decided to wait and see-who knows you could have been the exception that proves the rule. However, you have evidently decided that being a "Laytonite" is the only truth acceptable (somewhat like a southern Baptist -you don't need facts you have faith). I may be the first to abandon ship but I know I won't be the last as even some of your loyal staff (and you don't seem to understand that loyalty only works if it goes both ways) are feeling very uncomfortable with the way you have decided to go with what used to actually be a newspaper. Some of them are feeling more than a little deceived, and frankly, I think you have lost your credibility with most of this community. As for helping Cliff I think the turnout at your rally speaks for itself - when 99% refuse their support you can pretty well assume you have destroyed his chances. It is truly a shame that you are so locked into an unquestioning follower mental structure that you don't even think about whether you are helping or hurting someone like Cliff or the community itself. However, I think you will find that Zealots are pretty quickly dismissed by people, especially islanders, who by and large do think for themselves. However, all that aside, you really should check out the articles you print as I found one of them had been plagiarized almost word for word from a source on line, except for one paragraph. This should have been self-evident to you if you had bothered to stop and think. Regretfully, working with you has not been possible, as you don't really work with anyone; you think they work for you. I won't be phony and wish you luck, as I don't. So even though I very much doubt you will print my article as either my last column or as a letter to the editor, I will just say good-bye and hope you have an epiphany someday before you screw up even more people. - Ian Lowden (ianlowden.blogspot.com)
Hi Ian and Derek,
Ian, I understand from Derek that you also sent this letter – and I presume your article – to the Sounder, so I am including Derek in my response.
As you know articles for the Shingle have an 800 word limit, and the Shingle does not allow personal attacks of community members. The article you sent me is 967 words long not counting the headline, and will also require a bit of editing regarding personal attacks. If you choose to make those alterations I will publish your article.
I will of course publish your letter to the editor, but require that you tell me which article you are alleging has been plagiarized, and provide proof if you want that allegation to be published.
I am sorry that you feel so angry, but I do understand your decision to stop writing for the Shingle.
Regards,
Chris Bowers
Editor/Publisher
The Flying Shingle News Ltd.
381 Spruce Ave.
Gabriola Island, BC
V0R 1X1
P/F: 250-247-7987
editor@flyingshingle.com
www.flyingshingle.com
Cut the bullshit Chris - you have no intention of publishing my article as either a letter to the editor or as my last article. As for 800 words - that is a very convenient new rule as you have published articles and even editorials longer than that. As for personal attacks I don't believe my article contains any, just a criticism of your propaganda over truth policy - so what is it you identify as "personal attacks”? You print plenty of those! So if you aren't going to publish it because you are afraid that many of the community will agree so be it - it along with your refusal to publish it will get out there by relaying it through many people's contacts via e-mail and flyers so it is still your own credibility that suffers most as within a couple of weeks everyone on the island will know about your flimsy excuses. As for printing my letter - the article was my letter, the other part was just an explanation to you. As for providing you proof of plagiarism I believe you should be quite capable of figuring that out yourself - you do after all claim to be computer literate and should know how to do a search and quite frankly I have no intention of doing your job for you - it took me 8 minutes to find the source of the article you presented as new. I don't know whether you think you can control the Sounder or not but even if somehow the sounders new owners where to give you that right my article will still get out there. Your choice not to publish it will just strike everyone as cowardice.
I think Derek will have to make up his own mind whether he wants to cover for you or not, especially as it will get out anyway. You keep deluding yourself with your own importance. Why would Derek cover for someone and refuse to represent views other than yours when you are doing your absolute best to steal his advertisers and drive him out of business? If Derek had issues about thinking my words are personal attacks I would listen to him - from you it is just a predictable response. Some of your staff have already told me that you would not publish it under any circumstances - so after this you will have to say - The Shingle will present any community members opinion that the editor endorses". Do you really think that Derek is dumb enough to join that kind of censorship and for what? Do you think so well of yourself that you think he is trying to make the Sounder a clone of the Shingle, and that he shares your every opinion. Several islanders - including some of your advertisers have already seen some of my article and without exception are pleased that someone is willing to stand up to your manipulations. So I will also include Derek in my response to you. If he sees a problem then I will listen but all your objections appear to be specious and self-serving. You really should take a look outside your narrow circle and see how people are viewing you and what you write and what you choose not to include. Or is it you think attacking Layton's little soldiers is personal - if so re-read your Dear Gord columnist which most people think sucks as much as your dear gabby.
Derek, my offer remains open, if you think my article goes over the line between criticism of a paper's policies and content and into personal attacks let me know which parts and where and I will endeavor to work it out with you. As far as I (and others who have reviewed this) see it is an appropriate response to the Shingle and to my ex-brother-in-laws hate mail, which was, a very personal attack but Chris chose to publish it anyway. You can't have it both ways Chris, just because you want it to go away. Many more people will question your credibility for not publishing it. Either way you lose. You just got to figure out which way is going to damage your credibility more. You control the Shingle but that doesn't mean you can control what Islanders think, no matter how much you wish you could. As I have said before, my article is the only thing I want published and you know it is not the little explanation to you, once again you just try and obfuscate between a personal note and the article, and before you tell me that you can't publish the article as a letter to the editor because it exceeds 250 words let me remind you of how many times you have broken that rule when it was something you wanted to publish. And don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting I break it down to 250 words. You really are such a phony, you try and hide behind rules that you break all the time, it seems the rules are only there to help you justify not printing what you don't like - and that kind of thinking is exactly what separates a community newspaper from a manipulative propaganda sheet. One last thing, don't pretend to be sorry that I am angry, it is your anger you have to deal with and don't pretend you understand why I will no longer write for you, you don't really understand that either. So go ahead and publish it - you can always spend the rest of the paper trying to tear it apart, which I am sure you would enjoy as you like tearing at people who don't have access to defend themselves, it seems to be your thing, no wonder you couldn't cut it as a counselor-for the same reasons you won't make it as a publisher, you can't see past your own little walls let alone be able to empathize with any view other than your own.
