First and MOST important – Comrade Stalin, you are the second addressee only because I decided to list by alphabetical order, not according to any sort of importance. First, I thought to write this note at the bottom; second thought had me realize that sometimes you sent the NKVD first, then clarified. I am clarifying, just to be sure.
The past few days were very “active” PA Online editing/censoring(?) wise. Obviously, I do not see all.
On Dec. 3 I happened to see a thread started by ‘Kim Jong-un” thanking the Weekly for censoring. The thread disappeared; I posted it in the page I dedicated to Before& After. (link #1). “Kim Jong Un”‘s style reminded me of a dialog I had with “Josef Stalin” back in the summer. That dialog happened to be on a thread that dealt with Buena Vista mobile home park (link #2). That thread was was “silent” since August. I decided to try to address “Stalin” thinking that although it is a side note, the thread itself dealt with an issue that called for some attention after the past elections (Measure D). Nicely, those who know better than me stepped in. Stalin responded in a way that I was sure would be cut – spelling names of local publications in an insulting way. Stalin’s comment remained untouched. Maybe the moderators are also minding the NKVD, the way I did above?
On Dec. 5, , Anonymous addressed me, started a thread titled: A plea to village fool (link #3). Anonymous wrote:
Village Fool, Palo Alto Weekly is now accepting anonymous bloggers. Web Link
I have closely followed your crusade against the draconian censoring on this site. To the point of creating and monitoring your own blog. I feel this is an important area for discussion within the community about the power of censorship in shaping an biasing the discussion on Palo Alto issues.
At the very least, posting your correspondence with the Weekly would provide very interesting reading if they were to refuse you.
I must admit it was a pleasant surprise. I do not know who wrote this thread. It was restricted to those who log in when I saw it. That is a clear indication to me that this issue is not of interest to the moderators. I responded. Later, I decided to add another comment. That comment disappeared completely. I decided to try the comment again, rephrased. That comment disappeared as well. I posted both comments in link #1.
I agree with Anonymous that censoring is “an important area for discussion within the community about the power of censorship in shaping an biasing the discussion on Palo Alto issues.” This is a part of the reasons that I went this way.
“Village Idiot” tried to have this discussion (link #4). The editor actually responded there, but “Village idiot”‘s thread was restricted. The discussion is gone. The Editing/censoring(?) is alive and kicking, impacting the future, and reflecting the present.
One of my removed comments, responding to “Anonymous Plea” included Ms Mendoza’s quote which I picked from her response to my open letter after the Oct 8th board meeting. (link #5).
I have posted my thoughts related to this quote here (link #6).
I want to add now an additional bit-regarding that Oct 8th board meeting and the way the PA online reported about it. I asked before why the thread where “let’s cheer” reported his/her impressions from the meeting was locked, completely (link #7). “Let’s cheer” noted: “… and the only truth-teller in the crowd, Marielena Gaona, reminded the board that a student died from bullying at Terman and also that her “little angel” had to be repeatedly hit in order for the district to talk about bullying and special ed. None of the principals are smiling like they were before. Nor should they.”
I did not comment before about how astonished I was that the fact that Ms. Mendoza spoke up was not mentioned in the article covering this meeting (link #8). The three min. available for community members who want to address the board were used by two parents. One was mentioned, Ms. Mendoza was not. The fact that Ms. Mendoza’s address was not mentioned in the Weekly report was the “last straw” that had me publish my open letter.
I think that this goes back to “Anonymous” who nicely stated that those occurrences were ” shaping an biasing the discussion on Palo Alto issues.”
The fact that on Oct 8Th PAUSD was under CDE investigation, which was NOT mentioned during the board meeting, is just the Cherry on Top of all this.
Who knows what other Cherries are hiding.
Link #4: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2013/09/09/why-is-town-square-so-out-of-sync-with-dominant-free-speech-norms-of-the-internet-or-is-this-forum-not-a-forum-anymore-due-to-heavy-handed-editing-of-posts
Link #6: http://villagefoolopenboard.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/this-is-the-way-they-work-if-they-do-not-talk-about-it-maybe-people-will-think-that-the-problem-does-not-exist-ms-mendoza-101913-here-is-my-take/