Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Special Rights for Ernie Boch III?

By

UPDATE:  This diary is about to scroll off the rolls.  I have seen no substantive response from any of the 3 Editors.  This saddens me greatly.  It is with regret that I am left to conclude that they have indeed given Earnie Boch III Special Rights to abuse the rules.  The saddest thing of all is that they did not have the courage and grace to state the case openly.  Thank you everyone for your comments.

————————————————–

According to the Editors, these are the Rules we* all must play by.

Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

*except, apparently, Ernie Boch III.  Below are excerpts from a current diary.  A few days ago, I made a personal remark about another poster.  The Editors deleted it, as they should have.  A acknowledged my mistake, and apologized.  Yet here Ernie has made multiple personal attacks against posters, and his comments remain.  Are the Editors just not reading this diary, or does Ernie have the Special Rights he accuses * others of seeking?

  • Yes They Did… (0.00 / 0)

    […]I honestly cannot believe you are a practicing attorney.

    ernieboch3@hotmail dot com

    by: Ernie Boch, III @ Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 17:42:11 PM EDT

  • Now I Know You Did Not Go To Law School (0.00 / 1)

    That’s a joke you nitwit

    ernieboch3@hotmail dot com

    by: Ernie Boch, III @ Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 18:06:18 PM EDT

  • Apples and Oranges – Go Back to Law School Tudor 586 (0.00 / 0)

    […]The facts addresed by this wanna be, albeit, lousy lawyer, are not the same.

  • Tudor 586 either go to law school or go back to law school. A little knowledge is dangerous. Nothing worse than barroom lawyers.

    ernieboch3@hotmail dot com

    by: Ernie Boch, III @ Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:19:47 PM ED

  • Are You saying The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment… (0.00 / 0)

    […]The personal insults stay because if you are a lawyer you corrupted by your on pro-gay biases.

    ernieboch3@hotmail dot com

    by: Ernie Boch, III @ Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51:23 PM EDT

    ———

    there may be other examples – i got tired of looking.

    ———

    *

    Does Atorney Tudor 586 want more rights for gays than staright people have?

    I repeat this here in case it gets wiped from Ernie Boch III’s diary.

    Please share widely!
    fb-share-icon
    Tweet
    0

    • Comments

    1. I’m similarly shocked that Tudor claims to be a lawyer.  While I know that it would be insulting for me to have said it outright, it makes me feel better to know I wasn’t the only one thinking it. 

      <

      p>
      Laurel — feel free to attack me at your leisure.  I , personally, don’t care.  However, know that it reflects worse on yourself than me.  That’s why I was a little suprised they deleted the comment.  Mayhaps they sought to save you from yourself whereas they are ok with EB3 making himself appear foolish? 

      <

      p>
      Something to think about.

      • I didn’t read the comment or the post, nor do I ever post on anything meta related.  But ….

        <

        p>

        I , personally, don’t care.  However, know that it reflects worse on yourself than me.

        <

        p>
        Good grief.

        <

        p>
        As Mitt would say “Lighten up slightly“. 

      • I prefer to appear  as an asshole towards pretentious, self-rightous, narrow minded, self-centered frauds.

        <

        p>
        Thank you very much,

    2. “A few days ago, I made a personal remark about another poster.  The Editors deleted it, as they should have.”

      <

      p>
      And, of course, a separate inappropriate comment by Ernie on the same thread also was deleted by The Editors :-O

      • randomly deleting one of his many rule-breaking comments has no lasting effect.  the term ‘repeat offender’ comes to mind.  i understand that the editors can’t read every post, and so crap gets past you.  this makes me wonder why you don’t enhance your Rules so that you don’t have to be hyper vigilant.  how about 3 editorial deletions and you’re out?  what good are the rules when the rule breaker can just come back the next day and break them?  and the next day, and the next day, etc…

        • That you have people agreeing with your points here Laurel. I only hope that the BMG three amigos understand they are responsible for our dissatisfaction, and do something about it.

          <

          p>
          I like your idea about three strikes and you’re out. I would even go as far as when you have three votes to remove, it goes to a trouble folder for review. That way BMG can keep the comments they think have value, and delete the ones that are truly non-productive. It might be good to have a minimum average comment rating. Those who fall below the minimum required lose their privileges, and can file an appeal with BMG. I’m not looking to silence the EB3s of the world. However, if they cannot make points without insults, their contribution is not worth the headache. 

          <

          p>
          I will reiterate, disagreement is productive, arguing is not. Those who constantly behave in a disrespectful way should not be allowed to continue on a dignified blog.

      • Policy

        <

        p>
        “The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.”

          • It is a response to the fact that for some reason the rules are not being followed.

            • trying to get the editors to ban him.  whining about the rules doesn’t do anything, they end up banning the whiner.

              • That the level on conversation is being reduced to the point where one can’t limbo underneath it, but when in Rome…

    4. So to compare whatever slack I get from editors, if there is any, to my question to Tudor, is intellectually disingenuous.

      <

      p>
      You do understand about the difference between private rights and public rights, don’t you?

      <

      p>
      Like I said to Tudor, a little knowledge is dangerous. I hope you learn from this.

    5. It would have been nice to have the editors address this question, but EBIII seems to have obviated the necessity.

    6. It’s about time people start holding BMG to the standards it claims. I am all for honest disagreement during debate, but there is no point in arguing when people aren’t listening to each others points. The caustic comments might be witty, and give us a snicker from time to time, but for some posters here, that’s all they contribute.

      <

      p>
      Ernie Boch III has been allowed to go on like this for far too long, and it doesn’t matter to me what they do with him. If you feel they need a “Howard Stern” element here, that’s your prerogative. I sometimes don’t even bother reading the comment if I see it is his because they are always destructive instead of constructive. They bring nothing to the table for me, but that’s my personal opinion.

      <

      p>
      My advice for BMG is either live it (your rules), or change it.

      • This is a blog, and while it is a very lovely one, one of my favorites in fact, it’s only a freaking blog. I don’t post here that often, but if someone doesn’t like something I’ve written, and they use strong language to disagree with me, my day isn’t ruined. Blue Mass Group isn’t my life. You may not like EBJ III’s comments and posts, but more often than not he calls out bullsh*t when it’s there. If you have difficulty dealing with the “crudeness” of EBJ’s comments, my little advice would be to remove the stick from your ass and get over your holier than thou complex.

        • “I have been following this site ever since the convention, and shortly after decided to become a full-fledged member of the BMG community. I have held off posting a diary and have only posted maybe three comments, because I wanted to get a feel for how debate went on this blog, and whether or not I was even smart enough to contribute to this site. I have to say that I have been truly impressed with the high level of debate at BMG, especially how everyone here treats each other with respect, even when you disagree. I decided to write my first diary today, because on Monday I did something I never, ever thought I would do. I changed my party affiliation from Republican, to Democrat.”

          <

          p>
          I’ll give you three guesses… đŸ˜‰

    7. …this nonsense from EBIII has been permitted for far too long on this site.

      <

      p>
      If the powers that be allowed everyone to play by the same rules it would be OK…but they don’t.  He does get special treatment, and his posts are often rude, insulting and profane.

    8. and how the FBI sent informers and “disrupters” into anti-war and new left organizing meetings? The objective was to tie activists up in knots by sowing internal discord, so that there would be little energy left over for doing the substantive work of ending the war. I sense a vague parallel here.

    9. was when he resorted to calling me fat after we had a disagreement. I’ve been looking for a link, but I thnk that was finally deleted after a while. I’ll post a reply again if I find it later… but it was there for a good few days.

      <

      p>
      Real mature mind working there…

    10. for all here please ! And Garcon, make sure that Bock III and his friends correctly extend their pinky finger when sipping their tea or it’s out the door for them! Do you understand!!

        • What am I missing? My remark was an atempt at satirizing those who are nit picking Boch III for his (in their view) lack of “correctness”. Why are you so paranoid John?

          • I thought that when you were on the other thread being asked not to give ad hominem attacks, you learned what it meant. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

            <

            p>
            This is what you are doing when you satirize without contributing anything else. This would be fine if it were once in a while, but when rudeness is all someone contributes, what’s the point of having intelligent debate. If intelligent debate is not the point of BMG, what is?

            • you say “”then its not possible to satirize without contributing anything else “”??? Excuse the venacular, but what the hell does that mean? Could you translate?…and then, ” rudeness is all someone contributes”?? John with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about??? I surely have no clue as to what you are saying… thanks for any clarification.

              • People should be able to satirize each other from time to time without getting kicked off the blog. People can also satirize a situation, then go on to make a valid contribution in the same post. My contention is that some people don’t contribute  only insults and rudeness. What’s that look like? Well, it looks like this:

                <

                p>
                ” Hey John Hosty,
                Blow me. sorry guys. i know you will delete this, but i could not resist” ~EB3

                <

                p>
                Being funny is not a good enough reason to allow one person to break the rules over the other.

                • EBIII doesn’t just contribute insults.  He has some of the best inside-Boston stuff (such as noting Mr Butch’s passing), interesting posts on institutional racism in the Red Sox, and is this site’s leader on issues surrounding DA Conley.  And all this is from memory.  He is to Dan Conley what you are to the Barry Scott issue.  I’d like to see him rein in some of the snotty comments, but I could say that about others here. Frankly don’t have a desire, or see a reason, why either of you should stop posting here.

                  • and not sound like the whining crybaby some are probably thinking I sound like, but we have to have some resolution here. Some people think EB3’s posts are acceptable in the grand scheme of his contributions, some people are offended at how often he is allowed to engage in rude behavior without consequence.

                    <

                    p>
                    I would like him to continue to post as well, I just want him to reign it in a little. Telling Ryan he has nice tits, or me to suck his dick is not just a little out of line, its simply unacceptable.

                  • If you’re serious, put up a poll.  I’m curious who wants this “resolution” — if this is a complaint two or three people have, you may want to email the editors, rather than get into a multi-post back and forth.

                  • Why would a poll bring us more understanding of how to handle this situation than meaningful dialog?

                  • You followed my advice, but I’ll answer your question regardless.  Thus far, the only people offended are those with whom EBIII loudly disagreed on the Barry Scott issue.  Is the community offended by EBIII, or are some people offended by his temerity to disagree?

                  • into the archives.  this isn’t the first time that commenters have been angry over unfair application of the Rules.  it really has nothing to do with ernie.  he is just the precipitating factor this time.  it has more to do with the editors and being fair and impartial and living up to their own rhetoric.

                  • I could have sworn I was reading a blog post thread entitled:

                    <

                    p>

                    Special Rights for Ernie Boch III?

                    <

                    p>
                    and that the post I was reading was updated with this statement today.

                    <

                    p>

                    It is with regret that I am left to conclude that they have indeed given Earnie Boch III Special Rights to abuse the rules.

                    <

                    p>
                    Nope can’t see how anybody could reasonably believe that this was about EBIII. No reason.

                  • maybe i’ll have to rethink my atheism!

                    It is with regret that I am left to conclude that they have indeed given Earnie Boch III Special Rights to abuse the rules.

                    this next explainer isn’t for you, eabo, since you get it now.  it’s for others who may be more like molasses than quicksilver between the ears:
                    as you can see by the phrase i have put in boldface, this was all about what the editors are doing, or not doing.  in this case, it was that they were making most of us live by the Rules, but allowing another commenter (ernie in this case) to fudge them.

                  • You want resolution which is much different than we need resolution.  Much much different.

                    <

                    p>
                    I need no such thing. 

      • or that EBIII deserves continued indulgence notwithstanding the profanity lurking further up the page?

        • is funny as hell. Apparently Charley and David think so too else he would have been long gone amidst Laurel’s cry of “off with his head”. Boch III is actually a pretty humorous lawyer .. don’t you agree?

            • you can be my “lawyer” anytime regardless of having a “shingle” or not… really enjoy the comedy…

              • That’s my motto đŸ˜‰

                <

                p>
                As to lawyers, I think we can all agree that it is an immense challenge for a lawyer to be funny under any circumstances, given the mental waterboarding we all experienced in law school on our way to membership in The Profession.

    11. If these “insults” were the best that could be scraped up, then EBIII is on solid ground here.  He has perfected a churlish persona that may not be to everyone’s taste, but adds a good touch of variety to this place.  I’ve given, received, and observed personal insults coming to and from nearly every regular poster on this site equal to or worse than EBIII’s.  If calling someone a “nitwit” is part of some horrid plan, if that is deemed equal to echoing an agent provacateur,  if people take this blog that seriously, then this site is only fit for Ned Flanders.  I hope accusing someone of bias after he’s put up repeated posts accusing cops of gay-bashing with no direct evidence isn’t grounds for removal.

      <

      p>
      Vp3n was a clear case, and much more what I have in mind when it comes to silencing people who aren’t on board with bloggroupthink.  To me, this isn’t.  But if it’s not just 3 or 4 people who feel this way, I’m sure a poll would show that… 

      • “Ryan, I also told you once you had.. 
        nice jugs. But that also got deleted.”

        <

        p>
        ernieboch3@hotmail.com

        <

        p>
        “Hey John Hosty, 
        Blow me.

        <

        p>
        sorry guys. i know you will delete this, but i could not resist”

        <

        p>
        ernieboch3@hotmail.com

        <

        p>
        Sabutai, these posts are not worth defending, and they epitomize the problem. If anyone is allowed to continually break the rules with personal attacks, what is the sense in having rules? Either change the rules or begin to enforce them.

        <

        p>
        Most people who know me understand that I will not shrink from the heat. KnowThyNeighbor.org’s blog was often a free for all, but so long as the rules of engagement are known, they are acceptable. Saying there are limits, then not enforcing them creates confusion and frustration for those who want to engage in productive dialog. If you have no problem with EB3’s posts, let’s thought out the rules for everyone and make it a level playing field.

        • Telling someone who doesn’t agree with you that “you need to think here” is on par with EBIII’s comments you have in your post.  If the limits are enforced as you want, he, you, and I are all gone.

          • never anticipated this kind of exchange. geat comedy! It’s time to spark up a “bone” and don pith helmet, jock strap  and cleats for this one . Let it rip O’ my brothers!

            • Well, well, well, well. If it isn’t fat, stinking billygoat Billy-Boy in poison. How art thou, thy globby bottle of cheap, stinking chip-oil? Come and get one in the yarbles, if you have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou

              • was hoping someone would “get it” Just change the “well , well well” to ” welly, welly welly” and you’re perfect!!!
                Care for some “eggie weggs and steakie wakes?”
                A little distraction and humor is kinda fun once in a while isn’t it?

              • ( Dim)…” Yarbles! Great balshy yarbles!…. and I wouldn’t want you to be my brother anymore anyway! I’ll meet you with chain anytime”……
                ( little Alex”) and I’ll scrap with you anytime you say, O’ my brother.

            1. Do you think the comments I quoted violate the rules of the road?

            <

            p>
            2. What would you suggest be done?

            • 1.  I think these comments violate the rules of the road, just as your previous comment telling me that I have to think does.  The rules of the road are like jaywalking regulations — if they were enforced to the hilt, we’d all be gone.  As I mentioned elsewhere, EBIII has made valuable contributions that I think balance his snottiness.

              <

              p>
              2.  What should be done?  That’s not the title of this post.  I’m saying what shouldn’t be done is banning him.

            • I would suggest getting some nice Capt. Morgan’s and some shaved ice and make Long Island Iced Teas, with a cool cloth over your eyes, John.

              <

              p>
              For heaven’s sake, this is a debating society, not a church.

              <

              p>
              You have less problem with ad hominem attacks against people who ‘deserve’ it, by virtue of the fact they are silly enough to disagree with you.  I’ve been on the receiving end of some of your ‘banter’, but I would never suggest that you be banned.  Of course, for a long time in my mind I had you confused with John Howard….

              <

              p>
              EB3 is funny – a tad more vulgar than my taste, but it takes all kinds.  Diversity Rocks!  Doesn’t it?

      • God bless you EBIII for not invoking the name of he who shall not be named.  That dirt bag traitor currently residing in the Bronx.

    13. of this article was to draw attention to the fact that EB3 gets to break the rules of the road with impunity, and others have been banned from the site for the same actions. Let’s review the standards we all are supposed to be following.

      <

      p>
      Policy

      <

      p>
      The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

      <

      p>
      The purpose for BMG is pretty noble. How noble does this dialog seem now? All I am asking is that if we are going to take the gloves off, let’s say we are taking the gloves off for everyone.

      <

      p>
      It appears to me that the other four people who agree with my point of view on this have the common sense not to continue with this banter, and I should probably do the same.

        • did you think that one up all by yourself? I wonder when BMG is going to get the fact that in your jokes, they are the punch line.

          <

          p>
          Laurel did a wonderful job of pointing out how you accuse Tudor of being an armchair lawyer only to find he is a lawyer, and you are the fool in the armchair. I suppose your smarmy sharp comments only hold true about other people. Nice double standard.

    14. is rude, crude and insulting.  I can’t help it, but I laugh at him all the time.  If we can’t laugh, then what’s the purpose of it all?  It’s almost a badge of honor to be singled out by EBIII.  This place wouldn’t be the same without his vulgarity and spin.  He’s like the class clown.  You always gotta have one — right?

      • If we are going to say, “OK, Ernie gets a pass on the rules” then let’s agree to it, and be done with this. Conversely, we should be able to throw the rules out the window when responding to him.

          • I will continue until BMG reconsiders what this blog is becoming because of this prattle.

              • That sums up this whole discussion

                <

                p>
                “Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics, because even if you win your still retarded”

                <

                p>
                Id apply that to everyone arguing here, long ago I complained to the editors about something and they said its there site, and while I argued with them a little bit at the end of the day they are the ones who fronted the money and started this baby up. They are the ones who enforce the rules so really its there call and the 71 posts before mine were a waste of time and effort. In the words of Governor Romney lighten up.

                • “they are the ones who fronted the money and started this baby up”

                  <

                  p>
                  NOOOO It’s Their Goddamn Site.

                  <

                  p>
                  Not like they advanced the $$$ for the palne tix and everyone owes them.

                  <

                  p>
                  This is not your site. Could people please stop acting like it is?

                  • The people attacking you it is not their site, it is not my site, it is not your site, i think you misunderstood i am saying its charleys, bobs, and daves site and they have ultimate editorial control over you or anyone else.

                  • You saying that is like Milhouse dissing Bart.

                    <

                    p>
                    It just don’t work Dude.

                  • “The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.”

                    <

                    p>
                    Nah, this is just a popularity contest now.

                  • David, Bob and Charley as to what the “Purpose of BMG” is.  You’re thoughts have no weight because you don’t own or operate the site.

                    <

                    p>
                    and I’ll help you

                    <

                    p>
                    <blockqoute>”The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.”</blockquote>

                    <

                    p>
                    minus the underscores yields

                    <

                    p>

                    “The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.”

    15. That the rule about a post getting X comments automatically gets front paged, won’t be followed here either.

      <

      p>
      đŸ˜‰

    Archives