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. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_boy

    AnonLegal:
    Remember that in Barbados slander and Libel are no longer causes of action. There is only defamation.
    ————————————————–

    Is the following definition no longer true?

    Defamation off character — which included both libel and slander — is written or spoken injury to a person or organization’s reputation.

    Action for defamation:
    Section 3-1 of the Barbados law reads :

    3. (1) From the commencement of this Act it shall no longer be competent for a plaintiff to bring an action for libel or an action for
    slander and the action brought shall be for defamation.
    ———————————–

    You seem to seperate and did away with them, replacing them with Defamation, when I understand the act to say that the slander and libel are still very much actionable, but must now be done as defamation.


  2. Anon

    I was just highlighting that they are no longer causes of action. The cause of action is defamation. In other words, the claim form (or writ) would not reflect the tort as slander or as libel.

    You said:

    “While technically any defamation generated like this is libel, one has to wonder if slander might not be the better tort to impose.”

    It wasnt clear from the above statement that you recognised that the cause of action would be defamation rather than slander or libel.


  3. Sorry Anon. The comment was in response to Adrian. I thought it was you who responded.


  4. Well dey should da lock me up years ago… Murda I get way..!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhh

    Sorry Chris…
    Murder I got away…!
    AAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhhhhh


  5. Gear Box, listen, I is d comedian pun hay, not u!!

    Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddd!!


  6. David, yesterday you wrote: We truly regret we have had to disable the email notification on BU. We have a commenter who has intimated legal action and we have decided to batten the hatches and be prepared for whatever comes our way. But I have checked with others reading BU and it seems that notification is off for only SOME topics? Is that correct? Is that a mistake?

    I see that ROK for instance is still going into deep waters.


  7. @Anonymous

    What deep waters what? We cannot allow people to have us running scared in our own hometown. We back in the slaves days? What did BU do wrong? What did I do wrong that I can’t deal with and won’t deal with? I love that google decision.


  8. @David

    I am very sorry to hear that you feel that you have to batten down because somebody is threatening legal action. It would be good if you could share the basis of the legal action and don’t keep Veritas, Themis and nonlegal out there chewing their cuds. Give them something to chew. They sharpening their teeth; you see?

    From what I have gathered since coming to BU and what has been confirmed in my participation is that BU is a blog about Barbados designed to fill the void that the fourth estate has created and is a forum for issues in Barbados.

    I have asked the question twice and except for one person who would like to assert that a blog owner is a publisher, nobody else has responded. It would be good to hear from the three wise legal “men”; may be female among them too.

    To my mind, and I may be wrong, the google decision protects the blog master from the point of view that it has established that if a wrong has been committed by an anonymous poster, that the person wronged is entitled to know their wrongdoer.

    This is a very important point and it may be that the decision places an onus on the blogmaster to ensure that they can identify or trace each poster. That is, while there is no problem with being anonymous, for the protection of the society, if any person commits a crime or does a wrong from behind the curtain of a pseudonym, that person can be identified.

    I have heard it said that the law did not contemplate the internet, but maybe those who would like to hide behind a wall did not contemplate the law. There is not much about the internet if any that would require the development of new legal “grund norms”; all is there already. Internet is just another environment and medium.

    It would be great to hear from the three wise legals.


  9. I commend BU for initiating this topic. By opening this discussion, the comments penned so far, gives David, the readers and commenters an opportunity to not only express their feelings but to reflect on the many constructive and enlightening dialogue that have been posted. This topic might encourage some writers to be more conscientious about what they are about to write before doing so.

    Although there have been disagreements in the past that caused emotions to get in the way and might have caused hard feelings among commenters, this topic might also be seen as a heads-up.

    With commenters expressing their opinions on this subject matter, hopefully the air has been cleared and some of what might have seem to be tension building up has now been released, and we can go back to making BU a welcoming place for all.

    When all is said and done, most of us are Bajans or have Bajan connections, and we should all help to make the Bajan experience on the Internet a classy one.


  10. Message to BU family:
    A note of fear has been introduced by David and that is his call. As far as Dennis Jones, aka Livinginbarbados, aka LIB, is concerned there is one salient matter and it has been made clear on the blog and to David by e-mail. It involves reputation and a request for a false statement to be removed, and that request was refused mutiple times.

    David has been informed that the matter has now escalated and that Mr. Jones has forwarded the thread to the IMF’s Legal Department and is seeking their advice on how to proceed. If that is ‘intimation’ of legal action then at least know what has taken place so far. (We know that word is causing many problems.)

    Mr. Jones has had two preliminary replies from the IMF and the matter is still under review in Washington. In particular, they are looking at the thread in question and other threads where derogatory remarks were made. They are also looking carefully at the terms issued by WordPress. If they choose to contact WordPress for better understanding that would be their prerogative.

    He has also made clear to David that if legal documents in Virginia public records are being sought by Adrian Hinds, then instructions can be given to attorneys in the US to supply copies. This would avoid the records of the wrong Dennis Jones being mired in issues and open up other cans of worms.

    The lawyers who read can feel free to ponder and advise other readers.

    David also knows that Mr. Jones has asked others to review the threads on his behalf. They are doing so and commenting as they see fit. They are focusing on several things: errors of facts, faulty logic, indications that persons may be seeking to distance themselves from remarks and implied actions. They are basically posing questions based on material contributors are presenting. They are not really introducing new material. However, it may be better for each person to check.

    Those who wish to get a better idea of some of the issues that may bear but are not on this blog, would be wise to read some of the recent posts on Living in Barbados.

    If any contributor here would like to receive copies of the correspondence with the administrator of this blog they can contact the LIB blog, where the e-mail address is stated. If the BU administrator wishes that not to happen, it would be good for him to make that clear. The disclosure would only cover the matter of material going to the IMF, nothing else. Mr. Jones has given David certain assurances and he wishes it to be understood that they remain in tact.

    Some contributors might not have viewed certain things as serious matters that could affect persons named and their livelihoods. However, that is perhaps an unfortunate mistake.

    It is worth reiterating one point. No threats have been issued by Mr. Jones. Again, however, if some believe that to be an incorrect assessment it would be good for them to highlight remarks that could be so construed. Again, lawyers may have an advantage here.

    There is really no need for misrepresentation. Facts exist and these can be disclosed.

    If others have raised legal matters with David, then those are separate matters and for them to deal with.


  11. @ROK, the matter of ‘publisher’ is moot. Read the terms for WordPress, where all that is relevant should be clear.


  12. A former Washington Post journalist, who is an avid user of Facebook supplied the following:
    Privacy in cyberspace: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm
    ACLU, privacy technologies: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/internet/index.html

  13. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    Did LIB threaten BU with legal action? For what? who made the offending statements?


  14. Good resources Anonymous…

    Anyone who doesn’t yet understand that you’re not really anonymous (unless you *really* know what you’re doing) should read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

    Anonymity is an illusion. Act accordingly (and have you checked your browser’s cookie list recently?)….

  15. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    I have always said allowing this idiot amongst us would lead to know good. But two can fight this battle. He contacts lawyers in Washington, and I will contact Lawyers in Barbados.


  16. I think we should have cut LIB short in his tracks from every since but nooooo the type of person that David is he allowed that person to monopolise this blog!!!!!!!!!!!


  17. David!
    Bush Tea had recommended that LIB be dismissed from this blog from the very beginning of his appearance here… Bushmen can smell trouble from afar….

    BT has been known to have erred… but the last recorded example of such error was well over 30 years ago…


  18. Adrian, if you had any brains at all, you would shut the hell up. I been waitin pon dis day fuh a long, long time. What goes around comes around.
    By the way Adrian, LIB is not an idiot, far from it. I wish him every success in his bid to show you, David, and all the other mouthy egotistical minions that eventually, you must pay the piper.


  19. “the matter of โ€˜publisherโ€™ is moot.”

    It is nuh? Here is an extract from the TOS:

    “Responsibility of Contributors: If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) material available by means of the Website (any such material, โ€œContentโ€), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content.”

    This amounts to a disclaimer by wordpress and note that the disclaimer is not limited to the blog owner but to commenters. In other words all wordpress is saying here is that it has no responsibility for the use of the blog because clearly it is providing a platform. This is clearly a standard type of disclaimer for those who provide a platform.

    Therefore, even at the level of wordpress they are saying that contributors have responsibility for what they have posted. If I interpret this correctly, it means that every contributor has a responsibility and that every contributor is a publisher according to them.

    In terms of the blog owner, this does not place a responsibility to moderate content, but if you do, then the onus may well fall on you as moderator and that in normal circumstances a person suing may have grounds to sue the blog owner as publisher as well as the person committing the harm; jointly.

    What this also “intimates” is that users would use the services provided within the context of the law. wordpress, does not regulate content and as such is purporting to pass on this responsibility to all and sundry. It claims no responsibility.

    Of course it did not give up its right to terminate any blog it so desires and without any notice. Again this is another disclaimer to prevent action for loss of any material information, etc., or if the service shuts down for any reason and the services temporarily discontinued or can no longer supplied.

    However, wordpress has at least a moral obligation to treat its users fairly. I would not say that the above gives a license to treat its users arbitrarily. It therefore can only be a disclaimer to protect itself from liability for loss experienced by any users.

    This is hardly a moot point.

  20. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    David

    Am Illy reading this right?

    Dennis Jones aka Living in Barbados has run to the IMG headquarters with his tail between his legs seeking relief for damages to his reputation based on a blogger expressing their view or perception based on his postings?

    Th above post by Anonymous @ 26th August 11:10 a.m. is obviously Living In Barbados.

    It is interesting that he did not have the courage to use his handle however; to contact word press,to contact the IMF office,to contact lawyers in the USA as he alleges really tells us about a mind that thinks in a ‘strange way’.

    Many of us on this site warned and pleaded with David to deal with this character LIB who all through the day and night expressed his views on this blog as freely and as often as he wanted.

    He jumped in on every thread and spoke authoratatively on every subject.

    There were remarks he made the raised ‘red flags’ in my mind and I pondered them silently.

    Yet David for whatever reason felt he obviously was someone who should be encouraged,embraced and trusted.

    The above steps he has taken is a slap in the face of the people of Barbados and to davis who was so supportive of this man.

    I have now arrived at the firm conclusion that those who come to our shores and sojorn like the ricky singhs,and shridath ramphals and norman faria and dennis jones must certainly believ that bajans are ‘hidiots’ who can easily be insulted,intimidated and trampled over.

    Today is indeed a funny night.

  21. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    David has been informed that the matter has now escalated and that Mr. Jones has forwarded the thread to the IMFโ€™s Legal Department and is seeking their advice on how to proceed. If that is โ€˜intimationโ€™ of legal action then at least know what has taken place so far. (We know that word is causing many problems.)
    ————————————————–

    LIB has said that he has been let go from the IMF. Do former employees have access to the IMF legal department? I will have to check on that. But is he making representation on his or someone else’s behalf? That too needs to be checked. I think there was carelessness on someone’s part, (thretening to make representations to foreign authorities about a current government employee close to the PM) and given the sensitive nature of a relatives current line of work in Barbados may now be attempting to apportion blame on others for their mistakes. This too must be checked.

  22. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    David I need confirmation that LIB has indeed contacted the IMF legal department, and for what reasons. Because I prepared to unleashed to persons in Barbados what I know, and what has been said.

  23. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Adrian

    I too was asking myself why would an employer who has severed ties with you ie the IMF expend their resources;financial and manpower on behald of an ex mow or middle level employee – out of the thousands of employees.

    This man seems to be a stranger to the truth.

  24. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    3RD line – should read : on behalf of an ex – low or middle level employee….

  25. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    Remember that that BLP did not have a problem with Jennifer Lazlo beyond the point that she was working for the DLP. Think about this for a minute. He is not alone in his immediate circle of associations with ties to the IMF, and it is not difficult nor is it malicious to ask or to be concerned about his many opinions and stated intentions and wonder what is shared by the others who may still have a working relationship with the IMF. They have got to be a code of conduct, ethics etc that guides current IMF employees, and maybe past ones as well, in their conduct while in host countries. This also needs to be checked.


  26. @Anonymous
    “but nooooo the type of person that David is he allowed that person to monopolise this blog!!”

    I think that we really have to put some things in perspective. I am very happy that David did NOT adopt a policy of moderating and censoring contributions to this blog. I think in the long run that has served to protect him and the blog because as the rules clearly state, every manjack has the responsibility for his/her own content.

    I think that with all the talk about threats David is on safe ground except for what he or anybody purporting to be a BU rep has posted. This is his only liability.

    Even in terms of the rules, what wordpress has committed to is “removing” any content that it finds that violates; not even close down the blog initially. This relates to violation of license or offensive content; nothing more.

    The spirit in which the terms of use are written speaks to encouraging people to use the services and for correcting rather than penalising for breaches. A close scrutiny at the overall content of BU could hardly classify it as an offensive blog or in any way contravening the rules. Even if the comments of a few were out of character this could hardly characterise the blog as offensive.

    There is no need to fear. There will be challenges in anything you do and right now what is happening is that some are trying to test the extent to which the internet as a system or platforms within it, can be shut down. Under the circumstances, I would say that providers of internet and providers of internet based services have thought through the legal aspects of this thing so as to make the internet a citizens platform and communications base in a highly competitive information age.


  27. I am currently at work and can’t spend too much time posting. however I did post on defamation some time back on the thread entitled something like “load down Hoad…” I was making the argument that newspapers can not operate like Blogs do because they would not be in business very long:

    Here is what I said:

    “anonlegal // March 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM

    David,

    I am not saying that the feelings of the people should be disregarded. However I do believe that the feelings of the people are not so different from the feelings of the media practitioners. Many Journalists are interested in reporting the ground breaking stories that everyone wants to hear. However they have to do so in a way that doesnโ€™t plunge the business into insolvency.

    David stated:
    โ€œThe people are not happy, we want the laws changed to allow for the majority to speakโ€

    I can see that people want the laws changed. But remember when I asked the question: What change are these people proposing?

    I am of the view that there needs to be balance between a personโ€™s right to free speech and a personโ€™s right to a reputation (and if you read the constitution you will see that the drafters had the same concern). The defamation act as it stands now attempts to bring balance by offering defences such as โ€œfair and accurate reportโ€ which allows a newspaper to publish a fair and accurate report of a public meeting (on a metter of public concern) without fear of being sued. This defence is the main reason why the nation could publish what David Thompson said during his speech at Haggat Hall where he insinuated wrongdoing on the part of the owen Arthur. If the defamation act did not provide for this defence, the nation would have been facing a law suit. If you notice, a few days after the story was published the nation published an apology to the prime minister. I suspect that the reason they published the apology was because they expected a lawsuit (a prompt apology reduces any damages that a newspaper would have to pay if held liable for defamation)

    I stated already that I think that the best amendment that can be made right now is to codify the privy council decision that I referred to earlier allowing a newspaper to enjoy the privilege of publishing defamatory articles (which may turn out not to be entirely accurate) as long as they exercise โ€œresponsible journalismโ€ which should be defined by the act.

    We are not in total disagreement David, I am just saying that for many years now law makers (in Barbados especially) have been making efforts to find a balance between the right to a reputation and the right to free speech. I believe that their efforts are taken for granted by many of us posting on the blogs.”


  28. @MUBB
    “I have now arrived at the firm conclusion that those who come to our shores and sojorn like the ricky singhs,and shridath ramphals and norman faria and dennis jones must certainly believ that bajans are โ€˜hidiotsโ€™ who can easily be insulted,intimidated and trampled over.

    “Today is indeed a funny night.”

    WELL SAID!. Not only the quote but your entire contribution there.


  29. Once again, we see speculation about what people do not know rather than dealing with what is known. We suggest reference back to the offending thread.

    The fact that a remark is made is what is material and that is all that matters, and if it is untrue and its removal is refused, therein lies the problem. It still remains on this blog, so the problem continues.

    If person unconnected do not know contractual relations they should not presume them. Whether direct working relations have been severed or not, is not material. There are other ways that relations exist. I would hope that that is obvious.

    The idea that people can be chased because they say things with others disagree is contrary to the ideals of free speech, which people on this blog say they espouse.

    It has been said repeatedly that anonimity is a thin film. Persons can claim statements and some can try to prove to whom they belong but it is not an absolute. For instance, anyone can use an account and cite a valid email address with or without consent.

    The matter is whether clear statements were made regarding identifiable persons. There are many instances on this blog concerning living politicians. Is the belief that these will all dissolve?

  30. Johnnie Too Bad Avatar

    Come on Adrian just go for it, my friend LIB ain’t joking. He got news and you got news, there ain’t much difference between you and the people at the nation. You are all holding out on we the people.


  31. @ROK, as an aside. You use the terms monopoly. May we suggest you review the balance of comments on the Psyche thread and give some indication of its principal participants. Would you venture an idea of who is monopolising, if anyone. We do not think an author has more rights than others, by the way.


  32. @Anonlegal

    “as long as they exercise โ€œresponsible journalismโ€ which should be defined by the act.”

    If I may proffer an example. Is there any difference in saying, “… because of this or that, Mr. X is a thief.” and “Many residents said they thought Mr. X to be a thief in this instance because…”. Could the latter be considered responsible journalism in your books?


  33. @Anonlegal:

    And a related question: Just who, exactly, is a “journalist”?

    (I’m loving this!)


  34. @Anonymous

    “You use the terms monopoly.”

    Where did I use that word? I truly hope that you mixing me up with somebody else because I can’t remember typing that word. Help me out here.


  35. @Anonymous

    “…and if it is untrue and its removal is refused, therein lies the problem. It still remains on this blog, so the problem continues.”

    Are you saying here that removal has a similar effect of an apology? Mitigates?

    From the time that the post goes up, the offense is alleged, not so? Did anybody ask that their post be removed and it was not removed?

    Somebody called me an amateur pornographer which I am not and it is still there and reading it you will see that the person went to great lengths to make sure that every knew they meant me.

    Should I ask for the removal of the post simply because it offends me? There would be a difference though, if the person who posted it asked for its removal and it was not removed. That is the only problem I am seeing for BU. Otherwise how can we talk about free speech?

  36. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    David my patience with this fool is wearing thin. Did or did not LIB suggest to you that he has contacted lawyers somewhere regarding comments on this blog?

  37. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    ROK

    The anonymous @2:11 and @ 2:17 that you are conversing with is LIB,hear.

    He condemns this blog yet he can’t keep away and is so embarassed that he is now posting as Anonymous and not LIB.

    Man pull up yuh pants and be a man,do.

    I ask myself why did that one opinion expressed so ruffled LIB feathers?

    Adrian aka tall boy has just raised an interesting point above.

    Something to think about.


  38. Mr ROK, the fact that you let it stay may mean it comes back to haunt you. There is no record of denial at least.

    Your argument is similar to that used regarding the Nation. No one complained of ‘harassment’ before so why complain now? You see, the precedent was set.

    Removal is not an apology: the record is corrected. If it repeated, we start again. If you are not aware of the trail we suggest you read the CADRES thread, from mash up & buy back // August 23, 2009 at 6:57 AM.

    Requests for removal are not merely about offence but deal also with patent falsehood (in your case, allegations you say are untrue). You might have been flattered but the allegation was untrue and you might prefer that to be known.


  39. @Anonymous (AKA, in this case (probably) LIB): “Mr ROK, the fact that you let it stay may mean it comes back to haunt you.

    Or, perhaps (not speaking for ROK, as I’d never presume to do) ROK simply has thicker skin, and is more sure of himself, than some others…

    And to reflect “mash up & buy back”‘s comments above, it is quite clear that the recent posts by “Anonymous” are almost certainly LIB. (There are analytical techniques, you know, to show (to a certain level of probability) that this is true.)

    Come on LIB. Be a man. Put your name behind what you say….

  40. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    please do not welcome him back here.


  41. @Anonymous
    “You might have been flattered but the allegation was untrue and you might prefer that to be known.”

    LOL! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. That is a good one… but isn’t it also my evidence too? LOL!


  42. @Anonymous
    “Mr ROK, the fact that you let it stay may mean it comes back to haunt you. There is no record of denial at least.”

    You real bright.


  43. “LIB has said that he has been let go from the IMF”

    LIB’s wife also works for the IMF. When they are posted to a particular part of the world on a project they tend not to both work at the same time. One choses to stay home and “mind the child”..!


  44. Mr ROK, in your repeating the Anonymous // August 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM comment including ‘monopolise’ we erroneously ascribed it to you.

    Nevertheless, monopoly of comments IS an issue in the minds of some contributors, therefore the questions still apply. The Psyche thread is one that is still notifying by e-mail, so I was seeing a lot of comments posted by you.

    I guess you could seek clarification from Anonymous [?] whether only some monopolies are bothersome.


  45. BAFBFP may be correct. But more generally, persons retain contractual relations with former employers through beneficial aspects like pensions (due, in receipt, etc.) and also if they decide to revert to former employers on a contractual basis.


  46. @Mongoose (not yet released from moderation, but received by way of GMail)): “By the way Adrian, LIB is not an idiot, far from it. I wish him every success in his bid to show you, David, and all the other mouthy egotistical minions that eventually, you must pay the piper.

    @Mongoose… Just for clarity…

    Are you arguing in your above that we Bajans had best not dare express “free speech”? To question? Or else there will be a price to be paid?

    We Bajans are not a violent people. But there might be civil unrest (or, at least, much court action) if we are told this….

  47. Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy Avatar
    Adrian Hinds aka Tall_Boy

    Tell mongoose he must attend to growing some more pee pee and less tail. Ass that he is.


  48. I am yet to get the gist of what this individual(s) who appears to be so bitter against David/BU is trying to achieve.

    Could the commenter(s) who is doing the utmost to degrade, pull down, shut down BU understands that when one door closes another opens? What is up with this person(s)? What does s/he/they wants? What is his/her/their objective?

    Could this person(s) be jealous of the progress that BU is making and that his/her/their blog is not moving at the same pace? If that is the case, this person(s) needs to forget BU exists and re-evaluate his/her/their own blog.

    Could it be that because this blogger(s) made it known that s/he/they was sending material to post on BU, and suggested having a link back to his/her/their site had expected that by now the traffic to his/her/their site would have increased drastically or may have even gone off the radar? What is the real issue at hand? What could it be?

    Whoever this person(s) is that has the time to contact authorities about comments on a blog, good luck, but would like that person(s) to know that if BU were to close up at the hands & mouth of this person/them leading the pack, s/he/they can put it in his/her/their pipe and smoke it that it would be a day in hell before many of us commenters on BU be caught on his/her/their blog.

    Itโ€™s plain and simple if you donโ€™t like the heat or canโ€™t take it, get out the kitchen.

    Having said all that, is it possible for commenters to move on to more meaningful issues, instead of this and in the interim wait for the fallout of what maybe yet to come by this/these person(s) who wants to turn over the apple cart.


  49. Christopher Halsall // August 26, 2009 at 4:04 PM says, with too many parentheses:

    โ€œ@Mongoose (not yet released from moderation, but received by way of GMail))โ€

    You control moderation on BU, Mr. Halsall?


  50. Supporters of BU, please ignore the comments and all previous responses to those who want to intentionally bring negative press to BU.

    If you ignore eventually they will either have to respond to themselves or stop.

    Although David believes in freedom of expression, if I were him I would close this topic. It is getting blown out of proportion, many people are getting carried away with ignoramus and there is nothing to gain from the continuous bickering.

    The topic has served its purpose.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading