Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Weekly..unbiased editing?

Original post made by Truth on Jul 27, 2012

How does the public feel about the editing being conducted by Pleasanton Weekly staff? Do you think it is fair to edit comments based on an unknown set of rules? Are they doing a good job? What are your thoughts?

Comments (34)

Posted by Pete , a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2012 at 10:21 pm

Look at it this way...they are a business,first. Reporting can be a thankless job...so most(journalists) should feel what they are doing is important...which it is. Because the Independent newspaper has never found an affordable housing project it didn't endorse, within Pleasanton...it continued to provide thought provoking writing to their readers, and promote participation. So...what's the fuss? Thank you, Pleasanton Weekly, for giving me my say. Bottomline...this is their newspaper, their blog, their money and their time. If the Pleasanton Weekly could share again... what they represent to Community...it might go a long way to this subject matter, posted by Truth, to answer her/his question to themselves.


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 27, 2012 at 10:58 pm

I am all I favor of PW editing comments IAW published rules. Too many comments are in the form of personal attacks or go off topic. The Belmont Club published under the auspices of pjmedia.com has the following rules that work well:

PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of California Somerset
on Jul 28, 2012 at 7:48 am

Isn't pjmedia a little too racist to be used as an example? Poor judgement there, Dougie.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Jul 28, 2012 at 8:01 am

I'm sure, Annie, it must seem racist to anti-Semites and people who hate the US and want to continue to bring it down to the level of Europe. Where do you stand?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 28, 2012 at 8:15 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Last updated: Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:57 AM
Terms of Use

PleasantonWeekly.com provides an opportunity for community members to post opinions and other content directly onto the PleasantonWeekly.com Website. The Terms of Use outlined below are intended to govern and restrict your use of PleasantonWeekly.com, and your use of PleasantonWeekly.com constitutes a binding agreement to these terms between you and Embarcadero Media. If you do not wish to accept these terms, then do not post anything.

You agree to be respectful of others, be truthful and be solely responsible for all postings you make.
You agree not to use any profanity, nor post any information that is hateful, libelous or obscene, or that is threatening, abusive or offensive to any individual, group or class of person.
You agree not to post comments under multiple names. Postings within a single topic from the same IP address made under different names will be deleted.
You agree not to disclose personal information about another person, nor post anything that misleads others as to the source of the posting.
You grant to Embarcadero Media a nonexclusive license to republish in its newspapers or in other media formats, at its sole discretion, all or portions of the content you post on PleasantonWeekly.com.
You agree not to post anything on PleasantonWeekly.com that is not your original work, unless you know with certainty that it is legally in the public domain and permissible under U.S. copyright laws.
You agree not to make posts that are primarily intended to promote, or create links to another Website.
You agree not to make posts of a commercial nature that promote a business, product or service.
You agree not to republish in any form the posts that others make on PleasantonWeekly.com.
You acknowledge that although we do not have any obligation to review, monitor or screen the content that is posted on PleasantonWeekly.com, and that we do not own such content, we are the sole judge of whether the content you post meets these Terms of Use, and that we may edit, remove or lock content you post on PleasantonWeekly.com at our sole discretion for any reason, even if not specifically addressed in this Terms of Use.
You acknowledge that in spite of these Terms of Use, we make no assurances as to the accuracy or truthfulness of any content posted on PleasantonWeekly.com and are not responsible for content posted by others.
You agree that we may modify these Terms of Use at our sole discretion and that your right to use PleasantonWeekly.com is conditioned on your compliance with the then-current version of these Terms of Use, which you will always find on this site.
PleasantonWeekly.com is hosted on servers located in California and is intended to be viewed primarily by residents of California. In the event of any dispute arising out of or relating to this site, you agree that the exclusive venue for litigating disputes shall be in state or federal court in San Jose, California.

Should you believe there is content on PleasantonWeekly.com that violates any of the above Terms of Use, please report it immediately to Gina Allen, President, at PleasantonWeekly.com, 5506 Sunol Blvd., Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566, phone 925-600-0840, e-mail editor@PleasantonWeekly.com.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 28, 2012 at 9:44 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

There were good discussions out here prior to the arrival of simon/steven/whatever. Make it personal; I'll respond. And here, all I posted was the current rules from the PW. I must be some kind of threat to y'all; otherwise why spend so much time on personal attacks rather than the topic.


Posted by Pete , a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2012 at 10:12 am

Rules of enagement change all the time...outdated and require to be revised. Having won a breakfast on the over/under who might answer the initial question..."If the Pleasanton Weekly could share again" no disrespect intended.


Posted by whatever, the Golem, a resident of California Reflections
on Jul 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm

The hypocrisy coming from the right is a laugh; the censorship coming from PW is sad.

Yes, Staceleen, it's all about you. And, yes, that discussion you willingly participated in with steven@stoneridge re. auto taxes and tracking devices wasn't very good at all. It was terrible. People citing J.S. Mill and actually dissecting another's arguments. Gasp. Terrible. Yes, because you're such a threat to us all, despite the content of your ideas carrying no force whatsoever.

I do agree with Staceleen. Whatever happened to the good old days when rightwing racists could post here and not be challenged by the diseased lefty loons?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

No more than pondering the over the top vitriol. Mill was noted to be flawed by "steven". If the comments are based on a flawed Mill, there is no need to respond.

The attempts by anyone to put other posters into presumptive boxes (rightwing racists, lefty loons) does not contribute to the discussions. Yes, I would lament that people can't agree to disagree and let it stand.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of California Somerset
on Jul 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm

So true. I miss the good ol days when Kathleen and Stacey, Uncle Homerrr and Cholo, Dark Corners of Town and jimf01 would roam the plains of the Pleasanton Weekly forum like delusional gazelles in some sort of open-air mental hospital. Now, some have been cured, one or two have made real-world friends and joined the living, and too few remain to compulsorily post their screeds on whatever thread they shuffle haphazardly into. Now Steve, Mittens, Nurse Shark and other voices try to bring rationality to the asylum, disturbing the inmates and frightening them into ever more strident and frequent jeremiads. Can't we just go back to irrational times, when people believed in trickle-down economics, the Bush Doctrine, Death Squads, Terror Babies, deregulation, and austerity? Remaining inmates: retake the asylum before it's too late!


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Here we have little Ms. Ego backtracking on Mill: He's flawed, so why comment? I mean, why not stop to see whether my perceived 'flaws' are the same as yours? Well, because little Ms. Ego hasn't actually read the book. It's one thing to simply not be an intellectual. I can understand that. But to be too insecure to own up to the truth of the matter is a bit sad and pathetic. Does she truly expect anyone, with the exception perhaps of the unstable guy whose always yelling about liberals being diseased, to believe her? Speaks to the fantasy world a rigid ideology puts one in.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I'm not the one saying Mill was flawed. There is no path to reasoning with steven. And then, NJV, has to include several presumptions.

I find that there are works (or parts of them) which resonate and those to leave behind--doesn't make the author or the reader flawed. Not everything applies to each individual's experiences or thought processes.


Posted by truth is..., a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 28, 2012 at 4:00 pm

The PW is just another arm of the Democrat party.
Uber liberals.
Anything to promote the Democrat party and keep Democrats in office is what the PW does best.
As long as readers understand this, then all PW editorials and censored Town Square postings should be viewed with this prism.

BTW: 'Bout time for another photo-op with a Democrat making "tough choices" of supporting our Veterans, isn't it?


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 28, 2012 at 8:26 pm

Arnold, your comment is a great illustration of my point. Serious debate or discussion on these blogs is usually followed by a personal attack such as by calling someone a racist.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 12:21 am

Stacey is a registered user.

The good old days was back when we used to argue about the merits of Oak Grove and the Stoneridge Dr. extension and Nimby was the worst accusation. Then Casey wrote that begging letter to the community while refusing to make proactive changes. Someone got their panties in a bunch when the parcel tax was voted down. Now they just spend all their time on a personal crusade to shut down conversation here by even attacking people who campaigned FOR the parcel tax. No thread is too sacred for the person behind the attacks, not even the mother-daughter tragedy. The PW seems to think it's an appropriate use of their website.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 29, 2012 at 7:02 am

Staceleen makes a good point. She knows what's appropriate so much better than do PW editors or anyone else for that matter.

Discussing local issues, such as her apparent fear that Foothill is going to be shut down, is good. Questioning the moral or ideological presumptions of discussants, or their premisses, is baaaaaaaaad.




Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:08 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Misrepresenting others to make up for your own arguments' lack of any merit, especially on threads about a mother murdering her daughter is baaaaaaaad.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:20 am

... and rather than confronting another's argument, showing where it might lack merit, I'll just call it inappropriate and plea for PW editors to censor it. And if show effectively the lack of merit in so many of my own mushy claims, I'll go running to editors with my cry wolf victimization card. Oh, they're being soooooo PERsonal in attacking my ideas! Whine, whine, whine, lots of posturing, and more whine, whine, whine.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 am

Stacey is a registered user.

One thing we can agree on, the PW seems to think your misrepresentations on the mother-daughter thread are appropriate.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:34 am

Stacey is a registered user.

HAhahhah stop kidding yourself. You just resort to misrepresentations and namecalling whenever someone does show where you lack merit.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:38 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Actually, it would be great if the PW had enough staff available just to hold posters to their current rules (see above).


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 8:44 am

Stacey is a registered user.

If they don't have enough staff to manage their forum, they shouldn't operate it then.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 29, 2012 at 9:01 am

Yes, there we go! Let's put Staceleen in charge! Putting your kid into a car without safety seatbelt is a-okay. It represents freedom of choice for parents!

But when someone 'changes topic' by querying another's underlying premisses or logic? Off with their heads! "Appropriate" means only what Staceleen says it means!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 9:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Thanks for illustrating my point about your misrepresentations. It is not ok to put your child in a car without proper restraint. I don't know where you get this idea that I think that.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 29, 2012 at 9:43 am

Staceleen, you're being disingenuous again! Shame on you! Your alter ego, Staceleen, has stated several times that she/you are very much opposed to parents being govt mandated to place their kids in cars without restraint. Are you now saying you disagree with yourself? Kindly please elaborate!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 29, 2012 at 9:54 am

Stacey is a registered user.

That isn't me being disingenuous; that is you illustrating your propensity to misrepresent again.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 29, 2012 at 11:01 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

[Kath]leen said . . . I don't think it needed to be mandated. I have/will use all safety options available to me. I don't automatically assume the majority of the population is too stupid to keep their children safe.


Posted by steven, a resident of Stoneridge
on Jul 29, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Staceleen, who cares sooooo much about children states: "I don't think [child safety seats in cars] needed to be mandated. I have/will use all safety options available to me. I don't automatically assume the majority of the population is too stupid to keep their children safe."

Well, Staceleen, how many kids will have had to have died to convince you that there are lots and lots of parents out there who ARE too stupid to keep their children safe? Oh, oh, quick! Turn away. Change subject! Change subject! Call in your Stacey persona!

You see, Staceleen's ideology covers EVERYBODY (provided they are just like her), but it excludes kids and can't come to grips with how sometimes the govt must step in to protect children from bad parents. And that so doing is not Big Brother at all, but a benevolent democratic and enlightened state that has actors acting in the service of the people, not some little, pin-headed, rightwing ideology that Western civilization saw fit to reject 150 years ago.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 29, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Well, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, I do think there is at least one stupid person. My remaining comments are on the actual thread about tracking devices to collect yet another never ending tax.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 30, 2012 at 7:02 am

Yes, Staceleen refuses to address the question about the likelihood of kids dying if parents are not mandated to use car safety seats. If she cared about kids, truly, she'd address it. Ah, but to honestly confront it would mean her rigid ideology would have to be cast by the wayside as it has been cast by Western thought, some 150 years ago, onto the trash heap of ideological rubbish.

What stands out here, even more than the paucity of Staceleen ability to think independent of ideology, is her dishonesty.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 30, 2012 at 7:19 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Other thread Vinnie.


Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 30, 2012 at 9:34 am

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

steven: 'Well, Staceleen, how many kids will have had to have died to convince you that there are lots and lots of parents out there who ARE too stupid to keep their children safe?'
Please tell me you don't have kids. Or, are you one of those 'lots and lots of parents' you were referring to?
In any case, you guys should either get a room, or meet at a neutral site and hash out your differences. Your constant sniping at one or two women on these posts is only serving to publicly embarass yourself.


Posted by New Jersey Vinnie, a resident of Stoneridge
on Jul 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Care to say anything of substance? Or is hate all you have? Thought so. Of course, you child haters like to flock together.

Looking for something to do while you stew at everything under the sun? Try learning how to spell. Your spelling is almost as appalling as Staceleen's inability to reason outside right-wing ideological recipe boxes.


Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 30, 2012 at 10:22 pm

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Vinnie, back to the land of the toxic dump for you. You jersey guineas must miss your beaches with medical waste washing up all the time, eh. Yo, vinnie......


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,075 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 896 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 0 comments | 73 views