Following the HMB City Council meeting last night George and I decided to have a beer. While sipping the suds I reflected on George’s earlier sage words of advice to the Council in regard to the necessity for consistency in the application and enforcement of the rules governing our lives.  I agreed with his contention that Mike Ferreira had violated the law.  “Scofflaws” are anathema to those of us who obey them, and certainly set a bad example for others.  But, it was refreshing to hear that Barry agreed with George’s assessment; as George quoted him from my Blindsided post to Coastsider, “The rules are meaningless unless they are enforced.”

That brought me back to the discussions about whether Coastsider was an On Line newspaper masquerading as a private Web Site or a private Web Site masquerading as an On Line newspaper.  I believe its evolved into a hybrid.  But still, the complexities of a Web Site that looks like one thing and acts like another are disconcerting.  Maybe we need some new rules of engagement.

I reflected on George being “fired” from Coastsider by Barry for expressing his concerns for consistency, pointing out indisputable facts and, mostly, defending himself against personal attacks.  Perhaps a new selective interpretation of the Social Contract was being applied to George, wherein there are some who benefit from the protections offered by society and have no obligation in return, while others are held to a stricter standard.  I always liked to think that having one’s wrist slapped for a minor infraction was a favor, perhaps dissuading more serious conduct which might be encouraged if the original indiscretion goes unaddressed. I think George was doing his best to save Mr. Ferreira from himself but, it seems, to no avail.

My thoughts were interrupted by a conversation nearby.  There seemed to be a difference of opinion in the level of agreement between two other bar patrons.  They were arguing that the negative response to George’s reasoned debates on Coastsider, by a handful of LCPers, reflected some kind of subconscious Freudian desire to inflict self punishment.  George and I interrupted them to point out that there was insufficient evidence to draw any such conclusion, and their argument was without merit.  Although we were not feeling favorably disposed towards Coastsider and the LCP, we both felt better for vigorously defending them.

After finishing our two beers we said good night, and while driving home I reflected on the many ways to approach this issue.  Then I recalled the few occasions when I had to discipline my kids for their missteps when they were learning to play with the other children.  I told them I still loved them, but it was my responsibility to point out to them that they had been bad.

Guys, you’ve been bad.

I don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or another about whether anybody violated the law in case you describe.  George didn’t prove his case and you haven’t presented any evidence. You both seem to be relying on an oral tradition to which I—or most other Coastsiders—do not have access. Whatever George’s postings were, they were hardly “reasoned debates”.

I’m not very interested in the question of what Coastsider is.  It’s always a work in progress.  What doesn’t change is my commitment to get the facts right and to tell the truth. My other goal is to make this a fun and interesting place to hang out.

I want to have all points of view represented here, as long as we can treat each other with respect. As much as I hated to disconnect George, since then I’ve found the conversation here to be a lot friendlier, even when we disagree. I’m glad that Coastsider no longer feels like the Argument Clinic [YouTube].

What is the purpose of this topic? Is someone unhappy they can’t put their arguments on someone else’s website? Should Coastsider be held to a higher standard than, say, the HMB Review, which continuously exerts its rights of ownership to channel or ignore information as it wishes?

What one gets here is Parr’s local newsblog with trimmings. Without charge for it, unlike the locally-published newspaper. He has asked me to back off from calling jerks “jerks” a number of times. (Unlike Parr, I see no need to be freindly toward people who advocate damage to my life.) I can modify my words to his approach to what appears here or I can withdraw them and accept that he won’t let me say what I want to say. Either way, it’s his call. If I want something different, I’m free to set up my own website.

Carl May

Barry, isn’t removing George from Coastsider to make it a friendlier place, where we treat each other with respect, kinda like the Islamic radicals who will go to any extreme to shut off perceived dissent from their system of beliefs?  Now, I realize that this analogy is a bit of a stretch, and I don’t expect consequences of a similar magnitude, but, really, don’t you think censoring George for presenting the facts and his version of the truth, while giving a free pass to those who had a different version of the truth, is a bit…inconsistent? 

Yes, you improved the level of civility, but did so by conveniently eliminating the acrimonious responses of George’s detractors by eliminating the threat to their truths…George.  In so doing I believe you also eliminated a forum for dissenting opinions and the serious debate necessary to sort out objective facts and truths.  It takes two to debate as well as two to argue, but only one to moderate. Whether you like it or not, you are the guy in the hot seat.  If you believed that firing George was an appropriate avenue for moderation, I respectfully suggest you review your position as a neutral arbiter for the appropriate presentation of differing opinions on your news site.

Perhaps it makes little difference; the truth of argument does have a way of emerging; we will see.

Good likenesses of you and George in the Argument Clinic.

George wasn’t ejected for his opinions, but for the way he presented them. If you had disagreed with the folks you met at the bar by dumping a pitcher of beer in their laps, you would have been ejected from there as well.

Barry Parr - 20 October 2006 07:18 AM

George wasn’t ejected for his opinions, but for the way he presented them. If you had disagreed with the folks you met at the bar by dumping a pitcher of beer in their laps, you would have been ejected from there as well.

Yeah, but I sometimes miss the old wet-lap atmosphere of the pre-suburbanized Half Moon Bay Inn. Not that it could hold a candle to the, um, “behavior” of the patrons of the Montara Inn, mind you. There, in its heyday, you would be more likely to get a free beer for hitting someone over the head with a pitcher.

Carl May

If there was a heated discussion between two bar patrons and one, in response to a reasoned, but one-sided, assertion that Brand A was the best beer, dumped a pitcher of beer in the other’s lap, claiming that Brand X was the best, and there was no response by the suds proprietor, what would you call that? Now, if the aforementioned patron of the wet lap responded by returning the favor (hopefully with a non-premium beer), and was ejected by the now distressed barkeep, what would that be called?

It’s easy to determine that the almost unpardonable sin of wasting good beer has been committed by both parties. If the beer had been consumed instead, there would probably have been an entirely different outcome to this serious argument.

But, to return to the basic question…why wasn’t the first desecrator of the beer ejected by the Inn’s traditional keeper of the peace? I would conjecture that perhaps the first guilty party was a better customer, he and the peacekeeper shared the same opinion of which beer was best, he was a family member, or he was running a tab for his beer.

I guess we’ll never know.

Oh yes, Carl, good observation.

Well, if enough beer had been consumed instead, the argument would probably have moved to the line outside the Men’s Room. I see a trend twoard a wetter and wetter bar floor developing in this thread.

Sometimes I would go home rather than use the disgusting men’s bathroom in the Montara Inn. So, if I happened to be in an argument at the time nature called (over something important, like whether or not someone had called a kiss in a game of 8-ball), wouldn’t psychologists call my exit “leaving the field” rather than fighting or fleeing?

Bars are such a great place to sort out the serious issues in life.

Carl May

I was in my favorite watering hole the other night when I overheard a conversation at the far end of the bar (I had my hearing aids spooled up to full throttle). It sounded like the bar manager was interviewing an applicant for a potential barkeeper opening in early November. The applicant was relating his experience dispensing suds on the Gulf Coast before moving to HMB, and advising the manager of the conditions under which he would accept employment.

He said there was entirely too much noise. It seemed like the more customers there were, and the more they drank, the noisier it got. They acted like buying a drink entitled them to relax and enjoy the whole facility without considering people who might be driving by on the street outside. Additionally, there was too much moving around; customers should remain seated while drinking and limit their use of the bathrooms.

Now, these were not necessarily preconditions to his accepting employment; once on the job he would show them how he did it on the Gulf Coast. Noisy customers would be ejected and permitted to return only after serving a period of penitence and must agree to sit quietly on a designated bar stool under the watchful eye of the barkeep’s dog (who is related to the submarine Captain’s dog in the movie “Crimson Tide”.

The manager had better get used to doing things his way, otherwise he was going to get sued for Disturbing the Peace (along with all of his noisy customers), and, likewise, for having the lights on during the hours of darkness (clearly an invitation for others to join in the unwelcome noise making).

Wait a minute! The conversation I was hearing wasn’t them at all. My hearing aids were picking up something coming from the direction of the high school. You just can’t depend on anything these days; the hearing aids go in for an adjustment first thing in the morning.

Dale, I’m not sure whether your trying to tell me something or just riffing on the metaphor.  I’m just trying to keep the conversations flowing and friendly. And if anybody wants to talk to me privately, I’m easy to reach.

Barry,

No to the riffing, but Yes to the metaphor. Reference http://www.hmbreview.com, Talkabout topic “Please Don’t Take a Chance with our Kids Future with Pam Fisher”.  And, I too am trying to communicate in a friendly, metaphoric manner.

That totally went over my head.

I used to know a town that had a bar or two. Lots of good conversation and music.

Then these guys turned up. Local folks. Considered themselves as civic leaders though it didn’t seem like they actually ever led anything or created anything for the community. They liked conversation, too, and even had a good idea once in a while.

Problem was their behavior. Whether they thought it added credibility to their ideas or whether they just liked to raise a ruckus, I don’t know, but they certainly liked to draw attention to themselves in the worst way.

They would jump into conversations and make all sorts of outrageous claims—accusing others of wrongdoing, spreading innuendo, all without the slightest shred of evidence (they’d just start shouting if you asked for their facts or they might tell you to go look up the facts to support their argument for yourself).

Then they started dumping pitchers of beer on peoples’ heads if they disagreed with them. Most uncivil. Got so bad you couldn’t have any conversation at all without these guys comin’ round and messing with you with their tired old games.

The low point came when they took out their John Thomases one night and went right there on the table where some people of an opposing political persuasion were seated.

Well, that was the end of their welcome at the town’s bars alright, but that was also the end of the bars, too. No one was interested in getting together anymore after things got so bad. The regulars realized in hindsight that they should have ejected those ruckus-raisers after the first pitcher of beer was poured on the first head, but there was all this talk of censorship and whatnot and they were afraid of hurtin’ peoples’ feelings.

Now that town is an awfully quiet place.

Wow, what an incredible coincidence, Darin.  George and I ran into those same guys you’re talking about at a bar some time back.  We too were upset by their conduct.  I chose to ignore it but George said “enough is enough” when they urinated on our table, and retaliated by dumping a pitcher of beer in their laps.  Then I became upset because the proprietor barred George from the bar for his moderate response (I was actually more upset about wasting perfectly good beer on these guys).  Apparently the proprietor didn’t see them pouring their beer on our table (after filtering it first) and failed to realize that they had started the whole thing.  But I’m not sure, it could be that some of these guys were his regular customers and their conduct was OK with him, or he just didn’t want to lose their business.

I certainly hope not, it’s a nice bar, but some of the patrons obviously can’t find their way to the bathroom.

I’m virtually certain these were the same guys; one with a single eye in the middle of his forehead?

Obvious answer to all the above, which becomes wetter and more muddled with each round of drinking and peeing, is to enlarge the bathroom and make all concerned sit in there.

And for those who have moved up the street to Cetrella and continue to jaw loudly and incoherently without regard to others out for the evening, when the jazz musicians start to play, shut up!

Carl May