Is the PJ biased fair discussion?

[Cherrypicker999]

Is the thread
"Is the PJ biased"

fair open discussion based upon facts on what the editor wrote in the PJ on 4th Aug with fair comment, or is it a personal attack on her?

There seems to be an question by the administrator and it seems the thread may be closed. There is an accusation of being a "troll".

Frankly, this is not true. I am engaging in a open discussion and have simply quoted what she published and gave facts to give the other view.

How is that a personal attack or trolling?
I think it is a fair discussion.

If this is a site for open discussion, let's put it to the vote.

[Linnear]

I believe the thread is OK as what has been posted is in the public domain already and the PJ editor has had her say.

A previous posting of a private letter was another matter. If I had received that letter I would have possibly looked to legal action or a psychiatrist.

In short, I would have worried that I was a complete whack job.

Posting a private letter, naming the person that wrote it and then using that as a means to attack that person without them being able to defend themselves is a completely different matter.

Get over it.

[Cherrypicker999]

Linnear, since the posting has been removed, many don't know the full history.

Let's just say that person A wrote a letter for publication to a comic.
The editor informed A that she did not intend to publish (her right).

Then person B - totally unconnnected to A, sends an email complaining about censorship and not naming any names to the editor of the comic in question (there are many issues not related to person A's letter).

The editor of the comic reponds by assuming B was refering to A's letter (no proof exists) naming person A and writes some comments which could be regarded as rather insulting - which were merely her views and not factual.

Now, the issue is, should the editor of this comic have written such an email to person B, discussing a third party - person A?

There are issues of a breach of the data-protection Act, and of course libel, not to mention totally unprofessional conduct.

My view is simple. The editor of this comic had no business in writing emails to person B about person A. The letter was confidential (unless it was published - which it was not) and so was the history between the editor and person A (which may prove even more shocking - editor made very insulting comments).

A professional editor would not and should not discuss third parties with other third parties. To do so, makes the editor's job untenable. It is sloppy, unprofessional and perhaps unlawful. PMT is no excuse. If the editor does not wish to publish, she should say so in polite terms and not discuss with any third party.

Forget what was posted, the above is what happened, and that is what is the issue is about.

So, Linnear do you agree the editor was wrong to do what she did - sent an email to person B about person A, without the express permission of person A?

[Linnear]

What the editor wrote may not have been very good but if I had felt done down I would have taken it up with the editor not by airing it on an open forum.

I would say that that could seriously hurt any case you had against them.


Secondly, has it occurred to you that on this forum you have been accused of being joined at the hip and the editor thought the same thing.

Perhaps your brand of rhetoric smacked of school kids copying each other over their shoulders. Perhaps it was assumed that you both knew what each other had written anyway?

[Cherrypicker999]

An intelligent person does not make blind assumptions. They collate facts.
The comic's editor had no evidence or reason to assume Trebormint even knew me, never mind spoke to me. She decided to talk about me in an email to trebor mint.

Professional? I think not.
Breach of confidentiality? I think so.
Breach of data protection? May be so.
Libel? One could argue so.
Position sustainable? I think not. Resignation is called for.

[the old merlin]

I have to admit that, although I find Cherrypickers position on many things utterly different to mine, that I have seen no evidence that he and the other person are associated.

People could sign at a similar time, if only becaise community pharmacists are likley to get home from work at similar times and be in a position to sign on to forums such as this at similar times.

I really found the editors letter strange.