Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Outed blogger Rosemary Port now plans to sue Google.
Outed blogger Rosemary Port now plans to sue Google.

In has become apparent in recent months diabolical forces are working not in the interest of Barbados Underground. It is happening at a time when we have achieved all time popularity since our launch in April 2007. The BU family in the 2 plus years has been able to foster a feel to the discourse where all who enter the debates must do so NOT as primus inter pares but as equals.

We have not been afraid to confront the controversial issues like race, homosexuality, the mysteries of religion, immorality, corruption, the passive Fourth Estate among many. Part of the reason for the BU feel has been and still is the flow to discussions despite the asynchronous nature of blogging. In a nutshell we have not been afraid to call a spade a spade.

There is a price to be paid for freedom of speech. A normal behaviour to expect from some quarters is that with successย  inevitably come those who would attack because of envy or the fact some may feel threatened and the like. Commonsense however dictates if we the BU family want to continue what we have been doing hitherto, we have to exercise a greater degree of editorial control on what we allow on BU than heretofore.

In recent days global media has publicized the case of Google being forced to identify an anonymous blogger, for clarity David of BU is the blogger, you are commenters. Eventually, there are bound to be some sort of defamation laws internationally agreed that can offer redress to people who have been defamed on the Internet. Based on murmurings we presume that even now this is a matter being discussed by attorneys-general worldwide and their equivalents.

What the case more than hints at is the days of the cowboy approach to blogging and commenting on blogs are fast comingย  to an end. It is no secret that with the popularity of BU has come a torrent of comments which have had to be managed. We do our best but given the current realities our best may not be good enough at all times. The BU family we have to say in all honesty is a very intelligent bunch. In light of the challenges ahead BU will have to rely heavily on you to ensure we successfully navigate what may lie ahead. Sometimes it is not what you write but how you write.

Our request to the BU family is to ensure when making commentsย  you be careful to craft your language not to finger any individual as performing a criminal act or suffering from mental deficiency. BU is confident with very small adjustments we can continue to express our views with the same robustness.

We are aware how some BU family members like Chris Halsall feel about the subject of anonymity on the Internet. Some use it to avoid the inconvenience derived from telling home-truths in a small society where victimization still rear its head. Others do it to hurl abuse and other malicious behaviour. In the case of the former we are aware of some of the prominent personalities who read and contribute to BU and remain sensitive to why they would want to do so anonymously.

In the interest of preserving this outlet for Barbadians and friends to keep freedom of expression alive and well, the BU household thought it prudent to clue you the BU family into our confidence as we prepare to flex in order to face whatever lurks ahead.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


  1. While I agree that some of the posting is a bit overboard, mostof it is just expressions of opinion. however, this will have a bearing on the way some bloggers write from here on, some might even terminate their contributions. BU is now faced with the difficult task of screening everyposting since, like the call-in programme, the onus is on the BU that scandalous materials and untruths are not allowed to go over the internet. Freedom of speech is not really free, so I’m asking fellow bloggers to be matured enough and temper their posting.

  2. Random Name Generator Avatar
    Random Name Generator

    A necessary evil purhaps… but one that is long over due.

    Might I suggest that you add a tab somewhere with posting guidelines? So that anyone (especially first time posters) wishing to post has a handy referance to check.

  3. Random Name Generator Avatar
    Random Name Generator

    Ahh I see you have one… but it looks like it might need updating.


  4. Dave, may I c some more of Rosemary please!! She looks great!! freedom uh speech can wait!!

    Laaaaaaaaddddddddddddddd!!

    But, seriously, much as I fancy the young lady, u can’t go about SERIOUSLY, defaming people indiscrimately. People need to be able to defend their reputation and so, I’m in agreement with Google for releasing her details to the authorities!!

    Obviously, the minor name-calling we get on here, does n’t qualify!!

    Dave, an fuh dah likkle gem, I gun charge u $100BDS, awight?!!

  5. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Generally nothing I have seen so far except the odd post here and there amounts to abuse by the commentators.

    I hope BU is not spooked by LIB threats.

    There have been persons like the bowman character and pied piper and mongoose (perhaps all one person) who have envied BU success and have tried to get you to deal with the BU family like BFP did when they started to get popular.

    You may well remember BFP would tell any one who opposed them – to go and start their own blog.

    Well look and see where that got them now.

    I hope for all of us who are truly fed up with Lib that he takes a break from the site and perhaps ponder on what others have been saying to him.

    Right now BU still is tops in my book.


  6. @The Scout

    We will work together to overcome the challenges. If it is Barbadians who want to see truth and justice would not want to take 30 seconds more to craft a message then what? This is something that will take time, it will not happen overnight, if it doesn’t we would have tried. Hopefully others in the blogosphere will step up to the plate.

    There are the pioneers but it is equally important others capitalize on the trail blazed.


  7. @mash up

    The recent international case quoted prompted the BU household to do some reading/research and we thought it prudent to warn the family of the shift in how defamation will be approached going down the road. Had nothing to do with the suggestions you raised.


  8. Dave, u in menshun my money!!


  9. Stop patting yu self on the back. You doing good. Let it speak for it self. You all preach that to LIB. Write substance and then give opinion. You have source? Give it so others can check you? Be ready to be held to the fire.


  10. I know LIB, so say what you like. Read his other blog, http://caribbeancomment.wordpress.com/. That sound like envy? You read someone who crave to be on BU? Get real. You read his letter about CBC coverage in Advocate last Friday? You read his pieces in the Nation? Oh. He cross the road again and again.

    Cant figure him out? Read more. He writes about what he sees wherever he is. Good, bad, mixed.


  11. You think our blog is about LIB? As stated in our blog the recent decision by Google to reveal a blogger’s identity prompted the blog. Bear in mine the blogger is suing Google.

    The good thing, we can prove it.


  12. The PDC has NEVER and WILL NEVER give any kind of support – morally, politically, or otherwise to, or seek to exchange views with, any commenters on BU, or any other blog, who wilfully attempt to or whose clear intention it is is to use this internet blog to defame the character of individuals or to defame the reputation of businesses or any other entities in or outside of Barbados’ blog sphere.

    Where as, there are some persons who genuinely use the anonymity afforded by internet blogging (and we are NOT here now dealing with individuals who use their own real names or even BU ) so as to avoid being known by others and to essentially write honestly constructively their own opinions and without malice and NOT to defame the character or reputation of others, there are some others ( including the bloggers at Barbados Free Press) who – although using this same anonymity afforded so as to avoid being known by others, nevertheless use it to intentionally deliberately make false statements that are destructive and malicious and that are intended to – in the eyes of some other commenters on these blogs – lower the character and reputation of the persons referred to and for which they produce NO evidence of and or of which they know or should have known that these statements are in fact defamatory of others, or of which they know or ought to have known that having made such statements they could in other instances of the traditional media be otherwise hauled before the local courts to prove that these statements were NOT defamatory.

    Indeed, there are many pseudonyms like livinginbarbados, Veritas, Looking Glass, Green Monkey, Straight talk, Rumplestilskin, Yard broom, Ready Done, Technician, and others to numerous to mention which fall under the first category. Then there is another set of pseudonyms – albeit a smaller set than the first – like, WIV, Bonny Peppa, the Barbados Free Press and some anonymouses – which fall under the second category.

    Well, we say it is high time that laws of defamation are passed in Barbados that will properly allow for suits for defamation of character or reputation as a result of libellous material posted by anyone on these kinds of internet blogs. And we say too that it is high time that some one thought to be defamed by another on here or on any other internet blog, or their legal representative, brings a court case in Barbados against one of these individuals, or in the case of these bloggers, against esp. the Barbados Free Press – who think that they can hide behind anonymous blogging and make such scandalously libellous statements.

    Our preference though is for laws that will make all defamatory statements on these blogs subject to the criminal code of this country, i.e. making ALL those who are responsible for publishing false malicious defamatory statements criminally liable/responsible in law for their committing a set of deliberate, reckless public wrongs. We say this because it will be difficult to actually prove that a particular real person or the blogger did in fact write or allow defamatory material, say, on this BU blog.

    Where it is however established in a local court of law that such a person or blogger did actually do such things or omit to do such things, then and only then should they be made to respond in the civil courts for legal actions for aggravated punitive damages, etc. for defamation. In this regard, and to bring balance to bear on that situation, our preference too would be for blogs like BU to be given qualified privileges in the law of defamation just like traditional media houses are afforded in Barbados.

    And, we would hope that at the time such legislative or case laws are made, the government of the day would also have put in place a regulatory mechanism whereby internet providers and internet blogs would have to make sure that internet blogs themselves do register their operations and reveal their true identities before they can operate in the Barbadian blogosphere.

    For, we in PDC are NOT ONLY SUPPORTIVE of the truth, BUT ALSO SUPPORTIVE of the responsible proven truth.

    PDC


  13. inadvertence – line 4, first paragraph – it should have been written internet blogosphere – NOT internet blog.

    PDC

  14. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    Blogging under my real name I know that I have to be careful and be very resposible with my comments, no one has to ask Google who I am.


  15. You can’ expose me… I dun dead a’ready…..!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhh


  16. @ David, while I appreciate the immediate context of this warning, coming out of the Google affair, and yes, commenters must refrain from slandering others by name, I can’t help but feel that this could be the beginning of the ‘World Order’ agenda to censure or control ALL Blogs and commenters, one way or the other, as it is only a matter of time, before this reality kicks in. No joke!


  17. This might be the right moment and time for David/BU to make its commenters aware of what is going on in the blogisphere, and at the same time allow David to get a feel for the temperature within his own body/BU.

    There is no doubt there are commenters, as well as people in general, who at times would embellish on truth or lies to make what is said more salacious. They may do this with the hopes of drawing more attention, or with the wrong purpose in mind.

    Should readers judge the blog based on individual commenters’ spoutings, by the full range of all comments, or the owner of the blog who initiated the topic? There are times that BU should, if not already being done, send a private message to the originator of the blog or the commenter that there is something she or he has written that may result in defamation of character. We all could agree that sometimes discussions rise to the level that we let our emotions get in the way and say things that should not be revealed in public; however, we are human.

    Let us all who support this blog see it for what I think it is worth. At one time or the other all of us can do with constructive criticism.


  18. Carson, or u seeking fame!! Tell d trute, now!!

    Laaaaaaadddddddddddddddd!!


  19. If commentators wish to remain anonymous what they should consider doing is submitting a bogus email address or indeed no email address with their submissions then David will be free to give the US officials what they want if called upon to do so, which of course will be bogus.

    Self censorship is fine if the rules are clearly stated. In VOB country the use of the word “Tasteful” or “in good Taste” is now use as an excuse to editing. Now that’s plain down right questionable; but what more can you expect from that collection of Wimps.


  20. David, I like your blog. I’m with you 100!

    You obviously misinterpreted me recently when I tried to warn you about the nasty Sylvan Greenidge piece which I really hope you have removed. It is clearly defamatory of Hartley Henry and the Prime Minister. But Greenidge is a man of straw and has nothing other than the remnants of BLP largesse.

    In such cases, it is you, D, who may be liable.

    The comments about LIB waiting for a Work Permit are petty but funny. Definitely not defamatory though. They might be wrong, erroneous and a misrepresentation of the truth but LIB has “corrected” it. It is clear is that they have bruised LIB’s incredible ego.

    Caveat: his reaction also tells me there is more in the mortar! MUABB touched a raw, sensitive nerve with a comment others would scoff at. I wonder why?

    What more is necessary than a correction by one in the know in such circumstances?

    I promise to raise red-flags when I see them and you can do what you want from there.


  21. Mash up and buy back says: โ€œGenerally nothing I have seen so far except the odd post here and there amounts to abuse by the commentators.โ€

    You are confusing written insult with defamation. Both are unpleasant, but in most jurisdictions with which Iโ€™m familiar, only one is realistically actionable.

    On the relevant thread yesterday, at least a couple of colleagues who seem to have the appropriate knowledge of jurisprudence made repeated efforts to explain the legal precepts.

    If I come onto this board and call a known individual a โ€œhouse niggerโ€, I am being abusive. But I can assure you that legal arguments could be made in the case of the following plausible hypothetical โ€ฆ

    Letโ€™s say I decide to publish an assertion about a known individual who has made no secret of his professional background. Letโ€™s say that what is actually known as a โ€œreasonable personโ€ could be persuaded that (given the individual’s profession and current activities), his professional โ€œcurrencyโ€ is his integrity and impartiality.

    Lets further say that I publish the following widely-disseminated assertion: โ€œMr. X is obviously nothing more than a mouthpiece for [insert name of political party] and he hates [insert name of a different party] because the latter party wouldnโ€™t help him to get his child into [insert name of prestigious school].โ€

    On the face of it, Mr. X has a case against me. It could be argued that I have depreciated his professional โ€œcurrencyโ€ by besmirching his integrity and calling into question his impartiality. Mr. X might even attempt to show that my assertion has adversely affected his career prospects and his potential future earnings.

    Of course, if Mr. X decided to pursue a suit against me, there is no certainty that he would prove his case. It might be determined that a reasonable person would not think that my assertion will affect his career or earnings. In any case, and very importantly, I might have evidence to support my own case and thus I might be able to substantiate my assertion.

    The fact remains, nonetheless, that Mr. X has grounds to bring a case on the basis of my published assertion as to his integrity, his impartiality and, indeed, his honor.

    Another thing (and colleagues with legal knowledge who posted on the thread yesterday might disagree with me about this): I suspect that if my assertion continued to be internationally published, even after Mr. X had brought the matter to my attention, that might constitute an aggravating circumstance.

    All best wishes.


  22. Veritas, what kind of bush lawyer are you? David would be crazy to take your advice. Here you are defining what is defamatory and saying that a person “is a man of straw and has nothing other than the remnants of BLP largesse”. You are clearly not serious, are you?


  23. Maybe David needs to make some things clear. If his blog contains a specific untruth about an identifiable person that could be a problem. Rememer LIB is a handle and its owner is known–not anonymous at all. Had he continue to discuss using his real name nothing material would have changed for him (he is LIB aka Dennis Jones).

    If the offended party says the matter is totally untrue and asks for it to be removed, presumably he can prove what he says. He may have a statement or plan to get one that is legally sound. If there is no retraction, the untruth remains. That may be why the Advocate does not archive online versions. There are legal precendents at work. Legal precedents for the Internet are to created through new test cases.

    If someone was to search the blog what might they find? The may find the untruth and not look to any correction. They then repeat the untruth.

    The solution would seem to be. Remove the untruth or show the proof. The record would then be clean.

    A lawyer knows clearly what is at stake or what can be made at stake. Lay people thinking they know the law may be fooling themselves.

    While the untruth remains there is a tort.


  24. For more on the case see the following report and follow the link to the actual statement of claim filed before the court. It appears that this blog was created solely to target the applicant Ms Cohen

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/models_suit_exposes_cyberbully.html?ft=1&f=103943429


  25. @David and the BU.Family…

    As I’ve said before, anonymity on the Internet is almost impossible to achieve, unless you *really* know what you’re doing; most don’t.

    The reason I’ve gone out of my way to use my real name (and have done so since the BBS days starting from 1985) is two fold:

    1. I recognize that anonymity is not actually possible, and so by using my real name I ensure (or, at least, try to) that what I say has taken this into consideration.

    2. I believe strongly that a person’s message is inseparable from that person. Or, perhaps put another way, if you’re not willing to put your name behind what you say, why should anyone else bother to consider it.

    Now, I do understand the *perception* that in small countries, “calling a spade a spade” can have negative implications.

    However, I counter that the more people are willing to stand up and challenge that premise, the more likely such backward thinking might change.

    Unfortunately, I’ve learnt the hard way that “recognizing the elephant in the room” doesn’t go down well here.

    IMHO, this is to our own detriment, and we are further behind than we could be because of it.

    For what the above is worth….


  26. A question was asked on the Cadres poll thread how one commentator could know that another was posting under multiple names. The original commentator gave no reply. Does that compromise the moderator? If it occurs is it illegal? If it is known for one ‘person’ is it known for all? What are the implications?

    Mr Hinds has stated he has two IDs.

    LIB has stated he has two handles (Caribbean Comment is another for him) and can post as Dennis Jones if he wishes.

    But is information being shared?

    If one multiple poster is exposed then he/she can revert to one handle, but it would not be obligatory.

    But, does the blog need a list of handles used by one poster? Who can and will confirm. If some threads are padded should that not be clear to all?


  27. @Anonymous: “A question was asked on the Cadres poll thread how one commentator could know that another was posting under multiple names.

    This is another issue. And, relatedly, something known as “Astroturfing” in the industry.

    There are times when someone (or some organization) wishes to control “the message” on a Blog or other Internet Forum.

    We have seen in the past here on BU examples where a Poster seemed to never sleep. And/or, seemed to engage in “debate” with those who strongly supported their position.

    This is why, again, back when I used to administer BBS systems in the eighties it was the policy that only real names could be used.


  28. When am I gun b taken seriously, pun dis blog!!

    Lord!!


  29. @Bimbro: “When am I gun b taken seriously, pun dis blog!!

    As a start, how about using internationally accepted English?


  30. All wunnuh pun LIB back all de time all de time. And not a man says anything abou the puerile persistent perpetuall insults that ROK hurls at people on this blog perennially!

    @CH
    Why does Bimbro have to use internationally accepted English on this blog? Or why does bonny peppa?

    We Bajans understand cleasrly wuh he sayin!

    You think that looking down your nose mek you anny betta dan any body else?

    You mek me laff!


  31. There is nothing like anonymity if the objective is to explore IDEAS. Personalities always get in the way of free flowing ideas.
    When named posters like Chris and those others who wish to promote themselves submit comment, it is always filtered through the sieve of their personality and reputation – not always a good thing.

    When Bush Tea or Themis submit an idea, it can only be assessed on its own merit…. thus the IDEA is the focus.

    It is not always a matter of hiding behind an pen-name, indeed, there are posters who, were their identities be known, may gain automatic respect because of WHO THEY ARE and what they have ACHIEVED… rather than what they may contribute to the blog.

    As in all things, it is prudent to be tasteful. Those who go overboard need to be censored,and if David feels the need to be a bit more stringent in this regard, so much the better….. Like the true gentlemen that he is, he is taking a consultative approach to the issue.

    Finally, Even where actual names are submitted to the editor, Bush Tea feels that pen-names SHOULD be preferred. This removes the personality influence – as well as the temptation for ‘reputation builders’ like LIB to jump in and misuse the blog….


  32. You talking bout Bimbro and many folk come on this blog with real bad spelling, poor spelling and green verbs enough to mek a salad, and they does be serious.

    Bimbro & Bonny Peppa using Bajan dialect.

    If you dont like it you can go long bacl where you come from.

    Because you and ROK does keep a little bit of noise against the utility companies does that make wunnah lords and masters pun dis blog to say wuh wunnah like when wunnah like all al de time so?

    And not a man does say a thing! Not one word. The litlle white “lord” and the black idiot that thinks he is santa claus- damn clown!


  33. Making “adjustments” (as you claim in the opening preamble) ? It’s a little late for that now, isn’t it ? After he most repugnant racist comments and libel against people were permitted among the so called “BU family” , you now coming with ajustments ? Too late, documents already at prosecutor’s ofice and you will be fined and shut down…..
    Consult lawyers…


  34. You really think this is GUYANA dont you!

    ASS!


  35. And PROSECUTED for what, may I ask, edm? Fined and shut down, too? Don’t make me laugh!


  36. @Anonnymous [sic]: “Why does Bimbro have to use internationally accepted English on this blog? Or why does bonny peppa?

    He doesn’t have to do anything. He asked when he’d be taken seriously…

    @A: “We Bajans understand cleasrly wuh he sayin!

    Ah, but does anyone else?

    And this is the thing — we Bajan’s seem to think it’s cool to talk in a way that only we can understand each other.

    News break: we’re competing on an international stage!

    Two examples:

    1. A friend of mine recently tried to call a cab to the airport. The cabby was using heavy Bajan. My friend couldn’t understand them, and after asking them to repeat themselves three times, they were told they were a “comedian”. That cabby lost the job.

    2. I once had an understudy who refused to speak “international English”, even though he could. He stopped being invited into the Executive conference calls….


  37. Oh, just for clarity…

    The above “they were told they were” should have read “my friend was told he was”.

    As in, the cabby called the potential client a “comedian”.

    Customer service in Barbados. You gotta love it (not)….


  38. Of course its perfect up here in Canada!

    Up here we murder wives and decimate thier bodies!

    NO one competing for anything on BU.

    Only you and ROK think that we need to see yor faces when you guys post….as if you all are screen stars.

    You guys are conceited.

    As for losing jobs…….folk lose jobs for DOING THE RIGHT THING & NOT TELLING LIES OR BECAUSE THEY WONT WICK OR BULL OR ALLOW BOSSES TO MOLEST THEM etc etc

    OK Mr think you know it all?


  39. Emancipation Day Message – Norman Faria

    I hope you and ramphal and ricky singh and roxanne gibbs andronald saunders hear what Prime minister thompson have to say about you lot of ungrateful guyanese bitches.

    Biting the hand that feed you.


  40. Themis, as I said elsewhere there is no need to prove how not smart you are! I have read you long enough to come to my own conclusion. I don’t have to define defamation.

    We have an Act of Parliament.

    Nor do I have to say I’m giving David advice. I gave him. Its up to BU to take it or leave it.

    As to whether Sylvan Greenidge is a man of straw. You already tried to imply you are smart so go down to Coleridge Street and see it for yourself.


  41. As a start, how about using internationally accepted English?

    **************

    Chris, tanks fuh d advice but I much prefer Bajan!!

    Laaaaaaaddddddddddddddd!!


  42. Thanks for the defense Anon and also, on Bonny’s behalf!! I’m not worried about Chris bro. I don’t doubt he meant well but I in got d time tuh be stuck-up!! Moas uh d time I come hay to relax and have a likkle fun!! However, I do sometimes intend to be serious and I am now on the point about anonymous posters! I was, at first, opposed them but have reached the conclusion that it is a useful facility and congratulate Dave for ignoring my advice, on that occasion!!

    Well done, Dave!!

    Oh, so Chris, u is an executive!! lol!! Is that what u were dying for us to know, all along!!

    Laaaaadddddddddddd!!

    Kongratulations Chris on mekkin it to d Board Room!!

    Laaaaaaaaadddddddddddddd!! I caan bodda nuh mo, boa!! ๐Ÿ™‚


  43. @BU Family…

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world eats us alive…

    And, at the end of the day, it’s only our own fault…

    $1ns3 w3 $33m 70 f1nd 17 4mu$1ng 70 b 0n1y und3r$700d by 0ur$37v3’$…..


  44. Would n’t believe they’re the same person, would u!! I tek back my interest man!! Black or nutten fuh me!!

    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_outted_blogger_rosemary_port_blames_model_liskula_cohen_for_skank_stink.html

    As for the white one! What’s she a model of? A skeleton?!!


  45. @David

    I am still asking the question, to what extent is a blog manager a publisher?

    Another related question is, if a blog is not moderated, is there an onus on the blog manager who does not control content?


  46. Bush Tea wrote a@ August 24, 2009 at 1:14 PM, There is nothing like anonymity if the objective is to explore IDEAS. Personalities always get in the way of free flowing ideas.

    I have studied philosophy and science. Darwin’s ideas would have been better if he had remained anonymous? Aristotle, should have used “Greek Boy”? “Plato” should have used “No love man”? Marx should have gone by “Siberia”? Am I on the right track?

    When Marlow and Shakespeare conversed it would have been better if Marlowe had been ‘M’ and Shakespeare ‘S’?

    The PM should stand behind a tarp and say “This ‘DT STJOHN’, I want all of you…”?

    Am I the only one confused by the Bush Tea notion?


  47. The below is signed with my CB95259C key…

    —–BEGIN PGP MESSAGE—–
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    owGbwMvMwCS4on/um9NTVecwrslP4ihJLS7RK6ko8Zr0Ypp/kY5CQWpRRmJBsUJB
    aYlCYl5+SUZqkUJ5YqWenh4Xl2NRqkJ5qoJTYlZiHlBFUWpBYlFqikJJvkJaYnKq
    AlCtQlFqYk5mSaVCfppCfmmRQklmbmqxPReXrnNGUWYxV4cbC4MgEwMbKxPIOgYu
    TgGYW/ZnMMzhOM66RHki7/WM6XfuVG+YKfjDalYOw4L20EsytjtvM3xObtQ1Et4Q
    Fsp6uR4A
    =teE3
    —–END PGP MESSAGE—–

  48. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Bush Tea

    Lib just asked you a question.

    He is baaaaaaaack people,he is back.

    Ha.ha.


  49. In fairness to David, someone had suggested that the comment policy should be updated, because now it says there is none, but this post set up part of one. Patience would be good for a day or so to let that change happen.

    Views on the need for more control of what is written seems more or less favourable, but this is not a poll. David says on the existing comments policy not to let BU be judged by the comments of a few. That reads like very sound advice that may be neded at the top of each set of comments.

    A few questions point to things that need to be explained by commentators of moderators. Chris Halsall has mentioned Astroturfing? Can he say if the Wiki reference is a good one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing?

    I make this comment to try to made the moderator/admistrator or whatever David wants to be called have an easier life. He maintains the blog and needs it be well respected to stay in the forefront.


  50. @Anonymous: “Chris Halsall has mentioned Astroturfing? Can he say if the Wiki reference is a good one…

    It is my opinion that wikipedia.org can generally, but not always, be trusted…

    It is my opinion that wikipedia.org can be be trusted in this particular instance. At least, for the time being…

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading