Shetland Independent Newsletter

[peeriebryan]

^ That was me who removed the name. I'll send you a PM about it

[righter]

"KOYAANISQATSI" wrote

 

I think what Righter meant by suffering at the hands of others is in reference to persecution on a slightly higher and more personal level than getting a few pelters for putting together a poor quality attempt at what appears to be some self glorification venture. quote]

 

exactly...thank you.

criticism of this degree,and I`m sure we can do that without being rude or personal,does not in any way compare to what might be a lifetime of being judged. prejudice,can affect your relationships,career,housing and health.

 

I have re read the article again,and it seems to me that nelson is making the common mistake of confusing same sex couples with pedophiles. This is only inferred,not stated,so i might be wrong in this view.

 

Surely Stuart you can see that this point is not only his opinion but is factually wrong.

Again,Nelson is entitled to his view,but objecting to it can not be regarded as the wrong reaction to take.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Thank you Bryan for the PM you are of course quite right on the legal implications of stating that it was EVERY child that passed his shed, this of course could not possibly be an accurate assumption and I withdraw it.

I also take back my statment concerning your editing, I had not thought of the no win legal situation I placed you in and my comment regarding your good self, knowing what I now Know is of course ridicules and I can only apoligies for jumping to such an assumtion.

My contempt for said beast comes from knowing two of his victims and the effect his brand of evil has on their entire lives and a sincere wish not to see such events repeated due to a hopeless legal system which chooses to release such creatures to societys expense.

 

As you say it's much better to stick to the facts in concern to these matters.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scotland/678954.stm

[peeriebryan]

Cheers for your understanding KOYAANISQATSI and no apology required

 

As I said to you in the PM, the Shetlink moderators are often placed in a difficult position when it comes to editing decisions

 

And as has been pointed out in this thread, there's a grey area in which to find a balance between freedom of speech, causing offense and potential legal consequences. The lines are further blurred when the debate is on emotive subjects such as this

[Guest Anonymous]

Maybe the Independent has it's faults as far as bias, political corrsctness, etc.. I don't really care that much. Let be for let be is my attitude, freedom of expression is what a free society is about, I won't agree, but I won't get my underwear in a knot about it,,, BUT !!!!

 

The Independent has one thing in common with Da Times, and all other publications.... No sausage bothers to proof read it before they publish... And that really pisses me off !!!!!!!

 

Two articles, The Crofter, and Da Haaf, are not complete. Both stop in mid sentence. I clicked the next page both times, expecting to find the remainder of the article..... Nothing.

 

Pity the soapbox article couldn't have died after the first column..

 

That's my tuppence worth..

 

Cheers,

Da Auld Een

[spoot_ebb]

^ well said Auld Rasmie

 

Let dem write it, if you dunna lik whits in it, do whit I did.. pit it in da essy kert!!!

[stuarthill]

The Independent has one thing in common with Da Times, and all other publications.... No sausage bothers to proof read it before they publish... And that really pisses me off !!!!!!!

Two articles, The Crofter, and Da Haaf, are not complete. Both stop in mid sentence. I clicked the next page both times, expecting to find the remainder of the article..... Nothing.

The web version is slightly different to the paper version. For some reason I have yet to fathom, the software changes the size and position of text boxes when changing from web-based to paper-based. As the paper version was the one I was interested in, that's the one that received preference. The web version was only to act as a preview while I got the paper ready. You will find both articles in their entirety in the hard copy.

As it happens I do not agree with his views although I can understand his concerns. Perhaps if Shetlink has a gay couple who would like to adopt then they might just see if Mr. Hill will allow them access to the soapbox in a future edition.

I will be delighted and have already said so. In fact I would be pleased to get an article in the next issue. PM me if you want to contribute - you don't have to use your real name.

 

It is Mr Hill who acted like a lay and not like a professional should do.

 

I admit I'm on a pretty steep learning curve. This is the first time I've done anything like this and I will make more mistakes, I'm sure.

 

Surely Stuart you can see that this point is not only his opinion but is factually wrong.

Again,Nelson is entitled to his view,but objecting to it can not be regarded as the wrong reaction to take.

 

I'm not objecting to anyone's opinion, in fact I welcome it. Neither am I complaining about any abusive comments made about me as was suggested in a previous post - people are entitled to their views.

I'm not sure how I can check every detail in a submission (this one did come with a reference at the bottom which was accidentally edited out of the hard copy by the problem described above. The reference is: Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes.)

I know there are many people in Shetland who back Nelson Smith's views. Many valid points have been raised in this forum. Surely it is better that both sides of the debate are aired? My intention for the Newsletter is to provide a voice for Shetland that doesn't exist in the mainstream press. There are many subjects that people talk about amongst themselves, but that never get a public airing - that's what The Soapbox is for.

I will simply continue doing the best job I can, in the knowledge that I can't please everybody. If you don't find it sufficiently absorbent for the cat, you'll just have to continue using a more conventional newspaper.

[islandhopper]

I'm not sure how I can check every detail in a submission (this one did come with a reference at the bottom which was accidentally edited out of the hard copy by the problem described above. The reference is: Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes.)

Sorry, Stuart, but forget about further excuses. As the responsible editor you have to do that damned job. That's your duty - the more than this pseudo-reference is a substantial part of the whole mass. A not so good layout might be excused; wrong and purely agitating content (as the article in question) will not.

[Guest Anonymous]

Just a few little points.. I'm not normally political, but just for once I'll try.

 

Having read most of the thread, I may have missed something, but I wanted to air these questions/points of view..

.

1) Why has Mr Smith not tried, on this forum, to defend his article?

 

2) The reference to Hitler in his article could be a reflection of the fact that he holds gays in the same contempt as Hitler held the Jewish race. Would he then wish gays to walk around wearing a star, like Hitler did with the jews, to mark them as unworthy of a place in humanity???

 

3) I knew a guy in Aberdeen, in the 80's who always spoke out against gays, to the point of violence towards them, (He was married with children). He has now been in a gay relationship for almost 15 years. So is this a case of, "Doth Mr Smith Protest Too Much"????

 

4) God put man, and woman, on this earth, with all their faults, weaknesses, and failings. But I don't think that God would consider true love between two people to be wrong, no matter what their sex. We only have the words written in an ancient text to say that it is wrong. Who is to say that the writer of that text wasn't just another Mr Smith who bent the word of God to his own interpretation???

 

Normally what I write on this forum is nothing more than a load of excrement, perhaps the above observations are no different, but I believe each point requires consideration in the debate.

 

And a personal note to Adolf Smith, if he has the nerve to read this forum. "If you must spout hatred for a section of society, please don't do it in the name of my God".

 

Now I'll get back to writing excrement...

[Fifi]

There now appears to be 2 Shetland Independent forums -

 

http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2458015112

 

http://shetlandindependent.niceboard.com/Enter-the-Forum-c1/Your-first-forum-f1.htm

 

Can you ever have too much of a good thing?

[Ghostrider]

^^^ At least the second one doesn't appear to be overloaded with pop-up hellery like the original was. It was difficult to browse or take seriously something that kept of flashing the same message in your face every time you clicked on something, whatever you did.

[Roachmill]

I know there are many people in Shetland who back Nelson Smith's views.

I'm really having to bite my tongue on that one And yes, I do appreciate it's their right to hold their own opinions.

Many valid points have been raised in this forum. Surely it is better that both sides of the debate are aired? My intention for the Newsletter is to provide a voice for Shetland that doesn't exist in the mainstream press. There are many subjects that people talk about amongst themselves, but that never get a public airing - that's what The Soapbox is for.

Eh... both sides of the debate were not aired in the newsletter. Quite the contrary. Had they been you would've had a much easier time of things! By virtue of publishing a severely one sided piece can you understand why people may see that as your endorsing it?

I really have difficulty understanding why you chose to print it without an alternate view point to balance things out. Leaving it until the next issue is damn near pointless in a monthly newsletter i.e. mud sticks.

I will simply continue doing the best job I can, in the knowledge that I can't please everybody. If you don't find it sufficiently absorbent for the cat, you'll just have to continue using a more conventional newspaper.

Good luck Stuart. Give or take the odd... um... gaff... I think you've done very well pulling it all together. If you want it to be taken seriously then please try and keep it balanced.

[peeriebryan]

Many valid points have been raised in this forum. Surely it is better that both sides of the debate are aired?

Why has Mr Smith not tried, on this forum, to defend his article?

In the interests of fairness and balance, I would very much like Mr Smith to take the oppertunity to respond to the issues raised here and in his article

 

To Stuart Hill: I've been unable to find an email address for him. Is it possible for you to bring this debate to his attention?

[Guest Anonymous]

I always find it amusing when people dont realise when i am extracting urine on shetlink , and it seems koyaanisqatsi ( interesting name ? )

took the bait , hook ,line & sinker.

How ever he/she now describes me as a bully , well i can assure you that although i am a long way from perfect i am not a bully , i am humanitarian and fool of good will and try my best to be friendly and help all the people i meet through the passage of life. If i saw somebody drowning in the harbour i would jump in and save them even if they are a gay .

But you can call me a buff old traditionalist but i do think bairns should be brought up by a mother and a father , how ever if two gay men/women wanted to adopt an orphan and there are many thousands of them in third world areas such as africa then thats probably ok , its probably only a small percentage of these couples that do want to adopt and its probably mostly the gay women ?

As long as the bairn is being looked after properly then its a good thing.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I just offered you the same same type of offensively joke answer as you did to others, that you didn't realise that, then the hook, line and sinker is back in your possesion.

 

 

Still at least Droilker came back to explain himself and his wacky sense of humour, which is more than Nelson can manage.

Auld Rasmie wrote:

Why has Mr Smith not tried, on this forum, to defend his article?

Peeriebryan wrote:

In the interests of fairness and balance, I would very much like Mr Smith to take the oppertunity to respond to the issues raised here and in his article

Well no sign yet, I guess we can just put him down as another damn troll, but with Stuart Hills endorsement, and disregard any further output as unsupportable tripe.