Another shooting near the National Zoo

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yep. This is stuff folks in power (including Jeff) want to sweep under the rug. It's an ugly topic. There will probably be another incident next year or the year after, and people still won't want to discuss. Easier to pretend about what's happening than address any root causes.

I didn't realize I was in power. But, if there is one power I have, it would be to stop discussions of this sort on DCUM. Therefore, it is strange that you would make such a claim on the 20th page of the 4th or 5th thread on this topic. The event is not held again until next April. The authorities always begin planning in the Fall -- six months or so before the event. Those of you who want everything resolved this week -- particularly those of you who make ludicrous claims such as the above -- only make yourself look a little crazy.

BTW, two teens and a man were shot earlier this week outside Ballou High School. All of you crime fighters who claimed earlier that your concern was not limited to your neighborhood apparently forgot to start a flurry of threads about the incident.

Jeff, don't play victim. You ain't. Have been following the zoo shooting threads, and it is apparent that you have falsely accused others of racism, deleted posts that supported other valid points of views, and shown complete disregard, and lack of empathy, for the safety of those who were that day in the zoo or in the neighborhood. Or who may be there next year.

You do have power, as host and moderator of this very popular website. In my humble opinion, you are abusing it. If Matt Drudge is your role model, you're doing a very good job. I just used to have you in higher regard.

And, before you try to attack me too by asking why didn't I post about Ballou, let me ask you, where did you post about Montana, Oklahoma, Nigeria, Ukraine and South Korea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted on this question earlier. If the violence happened outside of the zoo boundaries, neither tickets nor metal detectors will help. The idea of refocusing for elementary aged children is a good one but I don't know if that refocus will be enough to keep violent teens away.

How is it still " family day" if you are trying to segregate out teenage children from family's? They are somebody's children too.

Segregation isn't the answer.

"Segregation"?!! Gimme a break. The only segregation going on is the informal segregation of African-American family day, which an earlier writer put it, may have outlived its useful life. Using race-baiting terms like segregation instead of proposing solutions to a real problem isn't productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the zoo charges for other special events (Boo at the Zoo is $20/person with the FONZ discount)-why is this "special event" free? Start charging or don;t allow anyone under the age of 16 in the zoo with a parent.

Otherwise it is equivalent to a poll tax.

If they can afford it, they cannot then charge money if its for an alterior motive.

A "poll tax"?! So you think that Boo at the Zoo is inherently discriminatory because they charge admission? In fact, most zoos around the country charge an admission fee. What about Wizards games? They're not free; is that a poll tax?

If you want to equate unlimited zoo access with some fundamental right like voting, what about the right for people to bring their kids and loved ones to a public place without fear of being shot or attacked by a bunch of seriously misguided "juveniles"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted on this question earlier. If the violence happened outside of the zoo boundaries, neither tickets nor metal detectors will help. The idea of refocusing for elementary aged children is a good one but I don't know if that refocus will be enough to keep violent teens away.

If easy access to the zoo for juvenile crooks weren't available, I doubt seriously that they would be congregating on Connecticut Ave. just outside the zoo. The zoo event is the attraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm honestly not sure. Also, I no longer live in the Woodley Park area, nor am I an employee of the zoo, nor a member of the AA community. I think it's up to members of those three communities to determine a path moving forward. What do they want to do with this event? Do they want to save it, transform it, redesign it? Does anyone know or is it too soon to know the plans for 2015?

Remember, this is a city that rushed to distribute new trash cans in the days before the mayoral primary, apparently without any plan on how to collect the thousands and thousands of surplus cans that now line our streets. (See the hilarious yet disturbing article in today's Post about how DC arrested for theft two artists who were taking away some of the cans that DC is unable to collect.) If the city can't handle such a simple task, which doesn't have great public safety implications, then it needs all the forward planning time in the world on how to address violence on "family day" at the zoo.

[Anonymous]

I'd be willing to bet that most of the folks in this forum having a hissy fit trying to find an infallible solution don't even go to the zoo on Easter Monday. What the fuck y'all so bent outta shape for? The Smithsonian will up their security for the event next year as will the Transit Police and the Metropolitan Police. If you still don't feel safe and secure then do what you've always done - stay your ass at home.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, don't play victim. You ain't. Have been following the zoo shooting threads, and it is apparent that you have falsely accused others of racism, deleted posts that supported other valid points of views, and shown complete disregard, and lack of empathy, for the safety of those who were that day in the zoo or in the neighborhood. Or who may be there next year.

You do have power, as host and moderator of this very popular website. In my humble opinion, you are abusing it. If Matt Drudge is your role model, you're doing a very good job. I just used to have you in higher regard.

And, before you try to attack me too by asking why didn't I post about Ballou, let me ask you, where did you post about Montana, Oklahoma, Nigeria, Ukraine and South Korea.

I have not deleted posts that supported other valid points of view and I'm pretty sure I haven't accused anyone of racism (though there was plenty of racially-charged messages, so who knows?). I am continually surprised at the repeated allegations that are not based in fact. You can keep repeating lies and I'll keep refuting them. You probably won't even notice that your posts full of false allegations don't get deleted while you continue to accuse me of deleting posts I didn't delete.

That said, your post deserves to be deleted and I'm not sure I'm going to continue showing so much tolerance. Simply put, you are just not fair. Hiding behind the anonymity that I allow you to have, you compare me to Matt Drudge!! Does Drudge allow people to post accusing him of having blood on his hands? Does Drudge allow anywhere near the criticism I've allow people like you to make of me? Of course not, because Drudge doesn't allow posters to post on his site.

So, from now on, if you want to make these sorts of allegations about me, you better have some examples to back it up. Otherwise, your post is going bye, bye.

[Anonymous]

How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

I think your guidelines (just for this topic?) was to not say anything unless you were an eyewitness? I can't think of a better way to eliminate most of the discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

I think your guidelines (just for this topic?) was to not say anything unless you were an eyewitness? I can't think of a better way to eliminate most of the discussion.

Well, then you lack imagination.

Edit: Also, the guideline was not to talk about what happened inside the zoo unless you had been inside. The shooting was outside. Posters were just making things up. Opinions on anything were fine. The thread was hardly limited by my guideline. This is its 21st page.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

I think your guidelines (just for this topic?) was to not say anything unless you were an eyewitness? I can't think of a better way to eliminate most of the discussion.

Well, then you lack imagination.

I may have missed what your suggestions are for next year.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

I think your guidelines (just for this topic?) was to not say anything unless you were an eyewitness? I can't think of a better way to eliminate most of the discussion.

Well, then you lack imagination.

I may have missed what your suggestions are for next year.

Yes, you did.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can my "point of view" be valid or invalid?

The previous poster claimed that I deleted posts that contained "other valid points of views". Ask her your question. As moderator, I established guidelines for the thread. I deleted posts that didn't adhere to those guidelines. The point of view of the message was immaterial. You might not like it, but that's the way moderated discussion forums work.

I think your guidelines (just for this topic?) was to not say anything unless you were an eyewitness? I can't think of a better way to eliminate most of the discussion.

Well, then you lack imagination.

I may have missed what your suggestions are for next year.

Yes, you did.

I hate to bother you, but I'd love to know.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to bother you, but I'd love to know.

I'm sure that bothering me is the least of your concerns. But, here are two posts from this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/379308.page#5054348
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/379308.page#5054701