Consequences

Garry Lawrence wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg Ross - that the news has been played
> out....and Joe is a good mate of mine and I was extremely
> disappointed to hear what happened, but, if the debate had
> been kept at a level above emotional threats of murder, or at
> least threat of bodily injury, and the like, then the
> interests of our industry would have been maintained.
> Everything said after the murder threat is now being tainted
> with the same level of credibilty. Unfortunate , but the
> truth. So despite the disparity of sentiment and the obvious
> readibility for the web junkies, I must say that sometimes it
> is better to take a breath and look for something new to chew
> on.
> For those who believe we can ignore the commercial reality of
> sponsors supporting our industry for the benefit of the
> actors the struggle will prevail. For those who are prepared
> to work in a balanced forum ..the force be with you. The
> solution is balance and it seems that everything has been
> said that can be said.
>
> Oh and ...is Luke short for anything.



Hi Garry

Everything has been said that can be said? Yes, I believe I've heard that said before...!
But some things bear repeating. After all, as Grant recently pointed out, a similar situation has happened each year for the past several years...and is likely to again. Only with information and awareness will anything change.

A forum like this gives the impression of documentation, because the words are recorded and archived...but really it mainly operates as a conversation. Issues remain relevant for as long as someone wishes to talk about them, and only come to the fore when there is continuing, in-the-moment, discussion.
Even as we speak, others are joining the conversation for the first time, will ask many of the same old questions for the first time, will supply many of the same old answers for the first time. That's just how it works.


I haven't personally threatened anyone with murder (yet!), but there have been heaps of threats, torrents of abuse, and plenty of morons being offensive. In the wider context of how often this happens over the history of this website, a) it's actually insignificant, and b) it does not taint subsequent posts to anywhere near the extent you claim. (If it did, your own logic would preclude me from considering your post so credible..!)
Every post ought to be judged on its own merit.


And balance? In the sense of 'equal time allocated to all aspects of an issue'? It's an honourable concept, but in practice it doesn't exist! There are more than two sides to every story, and there's no rule that the sides must be equal, or all represented. Equality is a value judgement anyway, and totally subjective. So there are always going to be aspects of an issue that demand more discussion. Whether this is fair or right or good or desirable is not for us to control...the simple fact is, that issues remain important enough to discuss so long as there is still someone willing to discuss them.



Cheers,
Craig


PS perhaps not short FOR something but short OF something..?