Identities

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

I'm sorry if this offends but there's an important underlying point here. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. They also have to accept that others will criticise what they say, and to simply refuse to defend what you say destroys any possibility of dialogue.

[Puerto bella]

I just want you all to stop this. Everyone has had their say. No - one on here is an angel and we all talk shite sometimes lets leave it at that.

[Porty]

[Makaveli]

From an 'outsiders' point of view - as I really don't know anyone on here in real life and am not an 'in the know' person of Portobello I will give my two penny worth:-

As has been said before you can't just make accusations and not back them up with evidence - as I say I am not in the know and have not got any insider information or High Street gossip - so when I see accusations on TP and on FB I need to see hard evidence to back them up. I can only judge on what I see written down here and what is brought to the table in the form of links or quotes so I have to base my opinions on fact not just hearsay.

To sum up anything said on here that cannot be backed up with evidence will be dismissed as untrue by myself, and I am sure, other observers too.

[rathbone]

[Makaveli]

I think the damage is being caused by baseless accusations being put down in writing as fact.

I'm sorry but you just can't say something and not have the facts to back it up and not be expected to be called on it.

[seanie]

If someone makes a claim that is untrue, is factually incorrect, are we to pretend it isn't for the sake of politeness?

[rathbone]

No, of course not and that wasn't what I was saying.

By all means make the point that the claim is untrue or factually incorrect and ask for it to be justified. If the person who made it then can't justify it or doesn't reply, we can all make up our own mind on the matter.

What concerns me is the obsessive hounding of people for the 'facts', the intemperate language,and the unnecessary name calling. In my view that is what is corrosive.

[seanie]

What's characterised the school debate is people making the same bullshit claims again, and again, and again. And actually I think I've been pretty patient with that, and have tried to explain why what's being said is untrue, for the most part coherently and rationally and with reference to the facts.

Which makes precious little difference because people rarely try to justify their claims or acknowledge the countervailing evidence. Instead they pop up again later, either here or somewhere else, repeating the same bullshit claims.

Eventually you have to call it for what it is.

[Epykat]

One of the main problems is that you make the assumption that nobody else knows what they're talking about - that everybody, bar you, is making things up. Maybe you should be a bit more open minded about the intelligence and experience of others. Just because they don't see things from the same perspective as you do doesn't warrant the endless questioning and harranguing which only serves to piss people off so they don't bother even trying to put their opinions or the reasoning behind them across - chances are that whatever certain people say will never, ever be good enough for you solely because it's not what you want to hear.

[seanie]

Sometimes people simply express different opinions, and that may be down to differing perspectives, expectations, or experiences. On a simple level such opinions are incontestable; people take a different view because they just do.

But once people make reference to purported facts, then it's no longer simply a matter of subjective opinion. Factual claims are testable against objective reality. In the case of PPAG there have been any number of factual claims that have turned out to be distortions, misrepresentations and straightforward fabrications. They've said things that aren't just untrue, they've said things that are demonstrably untrue.

[Paxetamor]

In the spirit of Positive Porty - my name's Tricia. Pax et amor my arse.

[regent]

As far as I can see those who have "outed" themselves are.

Bob = Bob
Seanie = Seanie
Regent = April
Rosa = Gilli
magibagpuss = magi
McDryburn =mark
Rathbone = Dave
Epycat = Avril
Puerto Bella = Suzanne
Seashell = Claire
Pazetamor = Tricia

[Epykat]

[seanie]

I'm not implying or assuming either. I'm making a straightforward claim that I can back up with numerous examples; PPAG have repeatedly made claims that are misleading or false.

It doesn't follow that everyone who isn't in favour of the school, or who sympathises with or supports PPAG are responsible for misleading or false claims.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Where are all these accusations of lying? Some people do get a hard time but that's largely due the content of what they say, not because of an assumption that there a bad person because they hold a different view.

[Epykat]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[seanie]

I’ll make a general point. I don’t know if it’s a new thing, perhaps it’s always been the case, but there are attitudes that come up frequently, to varying degrees, that are deeply corrosive to public discourse and run much deeper than intemperate language or being a bit rude.

Firstly, there’s an attitude that the right to express an opinion, somehow itself conveys legitimacy to that opinion; that because people are meant to respect the right to express an opinion, they have to respect the opinion being expressed.

This attitude leads to some people being deeply affronted when their opinions are challenged. They may even confuse criticism with an attack on their right to express an opinion. I’ve heard it expressed that in a democracy one should be able to express an opinion without fear of ridicule.

Well, no.

If people ridicule what you’ve said, they're also exercising their right to express an opinion. It doesn’t mean people are trying to silence you, or prevent you from giving your point of view. They just think what you said was ridiculous. Ok, if ridicule is the first or only response then that’s not conducive to public discourse either, but if people persist in saying silly things it’s not an unreasonable response.

The other aspect to this attitude about the right to express an opinion, is that it gives people the confidence to express an opinion regardless of how much they know about something.

To be fair all of us are, for the most part, hopelessly ignorant. The scope of knowledge is too great for any of us to know all but a fraction of it. We may know a couple of topics or issues in detail, a few more to a reasonable degree, but beyond that we’re winging it. But that doesn’t stop people expressing their opinions. It happens all the time; phone-ins, talk shows, ‘text us what you think about this morning’s topic’, the people who appear on Question Time etc. People rarely know much about what they’re talking about but by god it doesn’t stop them.

And most of us, perhaps all of us, overestimate our competence in areas because we seek affirmation. We probably mix with people that have similar opinions, we read newspapers that reflect our opinions, watch programmes that accord with our view of the world, frequent web-sites that tell us what we want to hear. If we're constantly getting reinforcement that our views and opinions are correct, and we aren’t being challenged, is it any wonder if we begin to think we’re a pretty good judge of things. Which in turn gives the confidence to express opinions, regardless of how little we might know about a subject.

Actually finding stuff out and checking things is time consuming, and if you’re clearly a pretty good judge of things (as everything you read, see or hear confirms) then why bother?

And if countervailing evidence is presented, or a claim is even shown to be incorrect, it’s frequently unwelcome; because facts are far less important to people than their right to express an opinion.

As it happens a stark expression of that was PPAG’s response to the special meeting. The accusation was that they had made factual claims that were unsupportable or simply wrong. In response to that PPAG made no attempt to defend the factual accuracy of what they said. The response was simply that they had a right to express an opinion, those were their opinions, and that was the end of it.

But if the truth or otherwise of what people say doesn't matter, if people aren't willing to justify what they say or acknowledge when they are wrong, if everything is just an opinion, then there's no possibility of a meaningful discourse, civil or otherwise.

[Bob Jefferson]

[regent]

Ridicule is an emotional response, in my view, it is not a reasonalble position to take. Debate and reasoned arguement is more likely to leave the person whom we are conversing with feeling that although a status quo has not been reached in terms of agreement or disagreement, there has been a tolerant and respectful interchange which leaves room for future debate and discussion on other topics.
The talent is being able to convey your ideas to others wihout causing offense even if you disagree.
Problem is that the debate on the issue of the high school has been very emotive and this appears to have led to a circumstance where debate has taken place on line which has reduced the use of people skills/communication skills which would otherwise have, I believe, not been been the case if the same issues had been discussed face to face. It willl be easy to dispute this, people may say "I would say the same to their face". I say "bet you wouldn't."

[seanie]

It's perfectly possible to have robust, even emotionally charged arguments, if both sides recognise the ground rule that factual accuracy is actually important. That's the important common ground, even if there is disagreement about what those facts are.

But if factual accuracy isn't actually a consideration, then dialogue is pointless.

[regent]

I agree that factual accuracy is important, think most people do. However, difference of opinion can involve lots of gray area and different views which may be believed to be factual. The problem with anonymous on line debate is that it takes away the people skills which may make for a better outcome to such discussions.
For me it's a bit like the frustrations that I have with regards to the community council. They communicate in a way which is process driven which again takes away the human aspects of commonly accepted ways of communicating.
The idea that people who seriously want to debate reveal there identity will I believe bring back some of these values and social considerations. The rest can be ignored, since if they continue to hide their identity it is likely that they do so because they wish to continue to make bold, false, untrue, obtuse, rude, inflamitory, negative, unexplained, unaccounted for statements. This is a website for local people who we may meet on the high street. I would like to think that it would be possible to speak to anyone who has posted on the web site despite the difference of opinion that I may have with them. POSITIVE PORTY!

[seanie]

Three incidents in the space of 15 minutes. Me representing PFANS and Ian Ross representing PPAG when being interviewed for BBC Scotland the other month.

1) Discussing the issues beforehand with the BBC interviewer, Ian Ross says the existing site was second choice during the 2006 site consultation. I point out that this is untrue, that the existing site was discounted on account of its size, and that it was the existing site plus the St John's site that was taken to consultation with two other options; the golf course part of Portobello Park or the pitch area of Portobello Park. And whilst the pitch option was chosen, there wasn't even a ranking of the the other two options. So the claim that the existing site was 'second choice' is simply untrue. Ian Ross's response? Nothing.

2) The BBC reporter asks me to justify building on green space. As part of my response I talk about the two all-weather pitches at which point Ian Ross interjects to say that'd be only one more pitch than there is at present so it's not a big improvement for the school. Now on one level that's technically correct, because the existing school does indeed have a pitch. But it's a 5-a-side pitch, that measures around 670m2. Two full-sized pitches should cover at least 10,000m2, probably more. I asked Ian if he thought characterising upwards of a 15-fold increase in pitch area as 'only one additional pitch' was being honest. The response? Nothing.

3) During the interview the BBC guy mentions the claims about the loss of greenspace. Ian Ross says the PFANS calculation included Holyrood Park. You can see the posters for yourself; it didn't.

So in a very short timeframe we have one inaccurate claim, one misrepresentation, and one outright fabrication.

Maybe those things were said in good faith, but that doesn't terribly interest me. The fact remains that, even taking grey areas into consideration, he was talking bullshit.

[Lashylass]

Bob Jefferson - why do you keep asking for proof of your horrid addition to your own website when you yourself have added details on here and it has been discussed by yourself and Rathbone? The website in question started on your website so how am I lying about this? As I cannot access the page any more on there I presumed you had removed it.

[rathbone]

Because you still haven't told us what this page was.

[Epykat]

[Lashylass]

Rathbone - I don't need to as you already have. Obviously you have no qualms about Jefferson searching around for personal info on people so he can display all their details online.

[seanie]

Happy to put this wager to the test.

[rathbone]

Lashylass:- Two points coming from that:

1) Your original posts stated that Bob had set up a scurrilous web site which had disappeared, possibly taken down after complaints. You were very short on information as to what that page actually was, which is why I went looking for it. You then gave a coy clue which I followed up. If I have already referred to the page, then it hasn't disappeared, as you have claimed. It is either the New School on the Park or PPAG Questions, both of which are still accessible on Facebook.

2) You make the assumption that I condone the personal information which was posted on PPAG Questions including the map showing where PPAG supporters live. I don't. I am appalled by that site. Both sides in the schools debate have plumbed depths of which they should be ashamed. I have repeatedly said on here that people should go back and review what they have written about each other and reflect on their behaviour. There is much which has been written which could be construed as defamation. This whole saga has been one which has damaged the Portobello community. Why on earth do you think that I would condone that?

[Chas]

[Porty]