Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When one makes money through advertising, advertisers do take note, especially if enough complaints come through. That would be the risk

I'm no genius with this interweb money bitcoin stuff but I'm pretty sure the deciding factor is number of hits on a site and number of redirects. Bitching about a code of conduct won't impact it as much as avoiding a site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon, folks--

I, too, am puzzled by the moderator's muzzling of comments about the serious pattern of shootings and other gun violence in connection with the annual zoo event yesterday. Whether done out of an abundance of caution or political correctness, I don't know. However, to cast blame on him for future violence because of heavy-handed censorship is both wrong and frankly inflates the importance of this forum.

And therein lies the issue. Some are making it sound like there are shootings every year, and that doesn't appear to be the case as noted in several posts though any shooting is bad. I think the moderator is trying to eliminate mis-communication which feeds into some posters justification who want to make this into a race=violence issue.

No one is saying the shootings didn't happen but to infer that it happens every year is, indeed, incorrect. Period.

The police certainly act as if they expect shootings or some other violence each time this event is held especially after the 2000 shooting. They're prepared with assault weaponry and also their presence is quite large even at the start. Yet, this is called a family event.

On the other hand, I guess, there was probably a heavy police presence with exposed assault weaponry at the White House egg roll, too.

And the marine corps marathon, and the army ten miler... Just about ANY big event in DC has lots of cops present.

I've attended street festivals (i.e. Annual Adams Morgan Day, etc.) and there's not even close to the police presence as is on Easter Monday at the Zoo. Nor are they standing around with their hands on the handle of their assault rifles at the start of the event.

Anonymous wrote:When one makes money through advertising, advertisers do take note, especially if enough complaints come through. That would be the risk

Anonymous wrote:

And here's another question: Has the identify of yesterday's shooter(s) been ascertained yet? Why not? The shootings took place in broad daylight, on a busy street, in the midst of apparently a large crowd (see video on yesterday's news). And the shooter(s) may have fled with the crowd. Yet no one saw the shooter(s) or pointed him/them out to police? Why not? You would think at a family event, the crowd would be outraged and the shooter(s) would have been apprehended within 24 hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahha I like when people make claims of "censorship" in the internet age. Nothing is to stop you from starting your own blog to write about an event, and you can even do it for free.

On top of that, the information isnt' even being covered up. It's on the front page of washingtonpost.com right now.

If you don't like DCUM's moderation, there is nothing to stop you from starting a blog or getting information on an event elsewhere. It's not like the old days where your only news source was printed newspapers, and there was a high barrier to entry to produce your own.

+1. It's about being too damn l-a-z-y to start their own blog and would rather complain here. The moderator has a whole lot more patience than me. I would've shut this thread down eons ago with some shit about having blood on one's hands. Hmmm, maybe that's why I'm not the moderator.

Yup- freedom of speech in an internet forum paid for and supported by a private entity is not a requirement. Its akin to screaming about a lack of privacy on a public street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon, folks--

I, too, am puzzled by the moderator's muzzling of comments about the serious pattern of shootings and other gun violence in connection with the annual zoo event yesterday. Whether done out of an abundance of caution or political correctness, I don't know. However, to cast blame on him for future violence because of heavy-handed censorship is both wrong and frankly inflates the importance of this forum.

And therein lies the issue. Some are making it sound like there are shootings every year, and that doesn't appear to be the case as noted in several posts though any shooting is bad. I think the moderator is trying to eliminate mis-communication which feeds into some posters justification who want to make this into a race=violence issue.

No one is saying the shootings didn't happen but to infer that it happens every year is, indeed, incorrect. Period.

The police certainly act as if they expect shootings or some other violence each time this event is held especially after the 2000 shooting. They're prepared with assault weaponry and also their presence is quite large even at the start. Yet, this is called a family event.

On the other hand, I guess, there was probably a heavy police presence with exposed assault weaponry at the White House egg roll, too.

And the marine corps marathon, and the army ten miler... Just about ANY big event in DC has lots of cops present.

It's one thing to protect against clear terrorist targets like the White House or perhaps the Marine Marathon after last year's Boston bombing. It's quite another to persist in holding an event, enveloped in massive police presence, because some of the participants themselves engage in unruly mob behavior that has led to multiple victim shootings and a stabbing.

And here's another question: Has the identify of yesterday's shooter(s) been ascertained yet? Why not? The shootings took place in broad daylight, on a busy street, in the midst of apparently a large crowd (see video on yesterday's news). And the shooter(s) may have fled with the crowd. Yet no one saw the shooter(s) or pointed him/them out to police? Why not? You would think at a family event, the crowd would be outraged and the shooter(s) would have been apprehended within 24 hours.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:everybody should know never go to the zoo the day after easter. sad but true

I'm being naive, I do realize, but what am I missing? Why is that such a hot-button day?

It is African American family day and, somehow, that leads to violence every year, either mobs or stabbings or, this year, shootings. It would be quite useful to investigate why, instead of ignoring these facts.

Except those aren't facts. Shootings and stabbings don't happen every year. In fact, it appears that in 2000 there was a shooting, in 2011 a stabbing, and the latest event which has still not been connected to the zoo.

Bullshit. Read the post by the Starbucks employee in the other thread. Attend the police community meeting tomorrow to discuss last week's harassment and shots. It is essentially every year, in one shape or another.

I read that post. It didn't say anything about shootings and stabbings every year. What purpose do you have to spread misinformation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that the post from the person who worked at Starbucks has not been deleted, because they appear to be directly reporting what they were an eyewitness to.

Correct. Posts that depict what people ACTUALLY experienced are not being deleted. Posts from people who were there but not ACTUALLY at the scene where it occurred and are reporting on what actually occurred are being deleted. Seems like Jeff has various sources and knows what happened at the scene, so lets posts that are true stay. Posts that are speculating because they were in the general area are being deleted. Not that complicated really and probably what a moderator should do. I'd much prefer to read first hand accounts that are actually first hand accounts.

I'm sorry you can't understand that OP and that you have an over inflated idea of your importance because you were in the area (and reporting the events incorrectly) but this post is such an overreaction it is actually laughable. Does anyone take you seriously IRL?

Anonymous wrote:Dear neighbor,

You should know that Jeff, the owner of this forum, has been deleting multiple posts from multiple posters describing what happened yesterday at the zoo. Should something happen next year, and lets hope it doesn't, please remember the role Jeff played in censoring those voices which had actually witnessed what happened around the zoo yet didn't fit in the narrative he wants you to believe in.

Bye bye Big Brother

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahha I like when people make claims of "censorship" in the internet age. Nothing is to stop you from starting your own blog to write about an event, and you can even do it for free.

On top of that, the information isnt' even being covered up. It's on the front page of washingtonpost.com right now.

If you don't like DCUM's moderation, there is nothing to stop you from starting a blog or getting information on an event elsewhere. It's not like the old days where your only news source was printed newspapers, and there was a high barrier to entry to produce your own.

All very valid points. I just wanted to alert fellow DCUMers about an important concern that was being censored in quite surprising ways. And I say surprising because I had not observed something similar in the couple of years I have been around. It is now clear to me that Jeff uses this community to drive his own personal agenda, so indeed it makes no sense for me to stay. Not a tragic loss, I know. I hope no one gets injured at the zoo next year, or ever.

I don't quite get your point. I think the other thread very clearly states the dangers that go on at this event. Not sure what your posts adds to that. I don't think there is one person reading the other post going "wow this place sounds really safe and it was just one crazy person making shit up". So I'm really not understanding your claims.

If the dangers of this event are sufficiently well-known that the prudent course is to avoid it, why have the event in its present form? Cancel it for a couple of years and then restore it as something that is just for young children or make it a ticketed event, as others have suggested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahha I like when people make claims of "censorship" in the internet age. Nothing is to stop you from starting your own blog to write about an event, and you can even do it for free.

On top of that, the information isnt' even being covered up. It's on the front page of washingtonpost.com right now.

If you don't like DCUM's moderation, there is nothing to stop you from starting a blog or getting information on an event elsewhere. It's not like the old days where your only news source was printed newspapers, and there was a high barrier to entry to produce your own.

All very valid points. I just wanted to alert fellow DCUMers about an important concern that was being censored in quite surprising ways. And I say surprising because I had not observed something similar in the couple of years I have been around. It is now clear to me that Jeff uses this community to drive his own personal agenda, so indeed it makes no sense for me to stay. Not a tragic loss, I know. I hope no one gets injured at the zoo next year, or ever.

I don't quite get your point. I think the other thread very clearly states the dangers that go on at this event. Not sure what your posts adds to that. I don't think there is one person reading the other post going "wow this place sounds really safe and it was just one crazy person making shit up". So I'm really not understanding your claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon, folks--

I, too, am puzzled by the moderator's muzzling of comments about the serious pattern of shootings and other gun violence in connection with the annual zoo event yesterday. Whether done out of an abundance of caution or political correctness, I don't know. However, to cast blame on him for future violence because of heavy-handed censorship is both wrong and frankly inflates the importance of this forum.

And therein lies the issue. Some are making it sound like there are shootings every year, and that doesn't appear to be the case as noted in several posts though any shooting is bad. I think the moderator is trying to eliminate mis-communication which feeds into some posters justification who want to make this into a race=violence issue.

No one is saying the shootings didn't happen but to infer that it happens every year is, indeed, incorrect. Period.

The police certainly act as if they expect shootings or some other violence each time this event is held especially after the 2000 shooting. They're prepared with assault weaponry and also their presence is quite large even at the start. Yet, this is called a family event.

On the other hand, I guess, there was probably a heavy police presence with exposed assault weaponry at the White House egg roll, too.

And the marine corps marathon, and the army ten miler... Just about ANY big event in DC has lots of cops present.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. my sense is that the moderator of these forums goes out of his way to not offend his very diverse community. I think that understandable.
2. others get frustrated when they get called a racist for ever trying to have a frank discussion on the statistical link between race and crime.

these are delicate topics, certainly. not sure what the answer is other than to agree that it is a private forum and the moderator can moderate as he or she chooses.

That's crap. I have seen him take a sledge hammer to every group.

So he's equally enforcing a standard of conduct? Great!