Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Lawsuit Update

Posted by auroracitizen on November 10, 2010

By Sean Pearce | Nov 10, 2010

Lawsuit cites new attacks

The lawyer representing three Aurora residents being sued by outgoing Mayor Phyllis Morris is questioning the relevance of some of the allegations in her statement of claim filed this week.

Among other items, the nine-page statement makes reference to an anonymous comment posted to Mrs. Morris’ YouTube channel Nov. 5 and alleges previously reported defamatory posts on the Aurora Citizen blog incited such remarks, suggesting they will continue unless the behaviour in question is halted immediately.

On the YouTube post, Jordan Goldblatt, the lawyer representing the three named defendants in the case — Richard Johnson, Elizabeth Bishenden and former councillor Bill Hogg — said he fails to see what, if anything, that has to do with his clients.

“There’s no reason why my clients should be held accountable for comments made to a YouTube account over which they have absolutely no control,” he said.

In addition to Mr. Johnson, Ms Bishenden and Mr. Hogg, the statement of claim in the $6-million suit also names three anonymous posters to the Aurora Citizen blog and WordPress, the site’s host.

Beyond the YouTube comment, the statement of claim alleges Mr. Johnson, Ms Bishenden and Mr. Hogg were either moderators of the Aurora Citizen blog or authorized, participated in or encouraged the publication and republishing of defamatory comments.

The document further alleges the three anonymous parties were permitted to make false and defamatory blog postings and comments between the dates of Aug. 24 and Oct. 4, but makes note only of the dates and times of the alleged remarks and does not go into specifics.

The statement of claim also alleges the defendants are already familiar with the offending posts, but can be provided with more details upon request.

“These defamatory posting (sic) are false and defamatory of and concerning the plaintiff and are made with malice by the respective defendants knowing that they were false, or with careless disregard as to whether the defamatory postings were true or not,” the document reads. “As a result of the defamatory postings published by the defendants, the plaintiff has been subjected to ridicule, hatred and contempt and has suffered damage to her reputation in relation to her office, profession, trade and calling as mayor of the Town of Aurora.”

None of the allegations contained within the statement of claim have been proven in court.

The task for the defendants, at this point, will be to determine their next move, Mr. Goldblatt said. A couple of options exist, he said, including a motion to strike, on the grounds a government can not sue its citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to go ahead and prepare a statement of defence against the plaintiff’s claims.

For his part, Mr. Johnson flat out denies ever having moderated the blog and is of the belief the motivations behind the legal action have more to do with his vocal criticism of Mrs. Morris’ actions and leadership.

As such, it’s not surprising the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has taken an interest in the case and is viewing it as a potential strategic lawsuit against public participation, he said, adding he believes most people would likely reach the same conclusion.

“This whole experience is so incredibly disturbing given that my tax dollars and those of the community are being used along with the town’s resources and expensive outside legal counsel to falsely accuse me of something I did not do,” he said.

“From my perspective, there are numerous questionable aspects of this whole legal action that are not exclusively related to how unjustly both me and my family are being treated. I think it is fair to say that a great many people are being unnecessarily and unjustifiably harmed through the actions of both the town and the mayor.”

Mrs. Morris said she had no comment beyond the statement of claim and referred questions to lawyer Howard Winkler. Mr. Winkler did not return calls for comment by deadline.

At present, there is no court date to deal with the matter, however, a motion seeking to compel the named defendants to reveal the identities of the anonymous contributors will be heard by the courts in January. Mr. Hogg has made clear neither he, nor the other two individual defendants, would have that information as anonymous participants to a blog are, by their very nature, anonymous.

Posted in Legal | 19 Comments »

“Blog” and other four-letter words

Posted by auroracitizen on November 7, 2010

After reading through the latest issue of The Auroran, I couldn’t help but notice there were a few references to this funny little creature known as “blog”. It seems to have caught the attention of some folks who appear to have some reservations about the use and application of this particular tool of social media. Blogs and blogging, have for some time now, been accepted by mass media outlets and governments worldwide, both as news sources, and as a means to communicate ideas.

It would seem for a few though, the blog represents a social media challenge. And since social media outlets and tools continue to expand every day, the challenge can be met 2 ways; understand it, learn how to work with it and make it work for you, or choose to ignore or attempt control of this growing trend in global communication.  In choosing the latter however, don’t be surprised if you get left in the dust.

Nigel Kean writes in his thank you letter that he hopes the new Mayor and Council will “get the job done without any bickering and hopefully no personal blogs”. No personal blogs. Maybe we should stop writing letters and giving opinions too. After all, letters, opinions (and blogs), all promote that nasty little bugaboo known as free speech. By contrast, it would seem that folks like Mayor-Elect Geoff Dawe and Councillor Evelyn Buck are quite happy with the opinion and free discourse blogs promote.

Outgoing Mayor Phyllis Morris also waded in on the issue, but in this case, she’s contemplating the creation of her own blog. Good for you Ms. Morris. She did note however, that her blog, if created, will contain “as much integrity as humanly possible”. You go girl. You teach us. You make sure that you create a higher standard for all of us to (try to) adhere to. David Tsubouchi may not be out of a job yet – he may land the role of “Commissioner of Maintaining Highest Integrity to the Phyllis Morris Higher Ground Blog”.

Finally, Wendy Gaertner stated her thoughts regarding social media. After reading her thank you letter, in which she warned us all that she will no longer remain silent when faced with both “direct” and “indirect” (?) criticism during this term (hope she’s allocated a fair deal of time to mount her challenges), she was then quoted in the lawsuit article as saying “…out of respect for everybody in the community, we need to decide what can and cannot be allowed in the new social media. Social media is a whole new territory”.

Yikes. Ms. Gaertner, for the record, I do not require you or anyone else to decide what can and cannot be allowed in the free-speech arena of social media. Your Orwellian view of decision-making for the community leaves me cold. There are those documented cases where governments have suppressed blogs and punished those involved. These cases stem primarily from countries like China, whose communist government’s idea of free speech is whatever they damn well tell you it is. As for the “whole new territory” comment, well I suppose that depends on your interpretation of “new”. Digital communities and online threads (the early forms of blogs) became mainstream in the early 1990’s.

Blogs are here to stay. Christopher Watts’ “Temporary Sanity” blog sets the bar high for intelligent social commentary and insight, while mixing it with biting humour and smart graphics.

Blogs represent a forum for free speech, and apparently, based on the recent huge increase of visitors, commenters, and posters to this site, a forum that engages the community like never before. Cheers to the Aurora Citizen. You have my utmost respect and support. You will soon be vindicated from this disgusting litigious attack on free speech. Blog on.

Posted by Matt Maddocks.

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, Freedom of Information, Legal | 45 Comments »

CCLA views Aurora lawsuit as potential SLAPP

Posted by auroracitizen on November 3, 2010

Reprinted from the October 2010 ebulletin from The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (highlight added by AuroraCitizen)

SLAPP Lawsuits On The Rise

In August of this year, the CCLA made submissions to the Attorney General’s Advisory Panel on Anti-SLAPPs.  This panel is considering the issue of how to prevent strategic litigation against public participation (also known as SLAPPs).  SLAPPs are lawsuits started against individuals or groups who speak out or take a position on an issue of public interest.  As the Advisory Panel’s website states: “The purpose of a SLAPP is to silence critics by redirecting their energy and finances into defending a lawsuit and away from their original public criticism.”

In our submissions, the CCLA argued in favour of robust anti-SLAPP legislation and made proposals to ensure that, if such legislation is passed, it is effective.  In particular, the CCLA proposed the creation of an independent public agency to assist SLAPP defendants and insure that fundamental freedoms are not stifled by strategic litigation.

Over the years, the CCLA has intervened in a number of SLAPP cases to try to ensure that civil lawsuits are not used as tools to curb debate and discussion on matters of public importance.  Recently, the CCLA has learned of a number of lawsuits that appear to do just that.  One is a lawsuit started by the Mayor of the Town of Aurora against a number of individuals who posted to a local blog and criticized her leadership.

The Mayor is seeking over $6 million in damages and will also be asking the Court for orders disclosing the identities of individuals who posted to the blog anonymously. The lawsuit is being funded by the town’s Council.

Perhaps the most well-known recent SLAPP case is the claim for defamation started by Toronto police officer Adam Josephs, also known as “Officer Bubbles”.  Josephs was captured on video telling a young woman during the G20 that he would arrest her if she didn’t stop blowing bubbles.

The video went viral and spawned a series of animated cartoons depicting “Officer Bubbles” engaged in a variety of abusive police behaviour.  Several people also commented on the videos on YouTube, calling the officer names and harshly criticizing the way in which he performs his duties.  Officer Josephs has now launched a lawsuit, seeking over $1 million from YouTube and several of the anonymous posters who posted the cartoons and commented on them.  The CCLA is particularly concerned about this lawsuit because it compounds the limits on free expression that were experienced by peaceful protestors during the G20 and may result in silencing individuals who have legitimate concerns about G20 policing.  The CCLA is urging Officer Josephs to drop his lawsuit.

Posted in Legal | 6 Comments »

Recount This

Posted by auroracitizen on November 3, 2010

The recount was approved last night — as only Morris and MacEachern could manage a meeting.

To start — the meeting took 1 hour and 45 minutes to discuss and vote for a foregone conclusion. All the members played their appointed roles.

First Granger was required to declare a conflict of interest because if he were to win, he would financially benefit. Of course, Phyllis felt obligated to ask Mr Cooper if this was appropriate — to which he replied that each member of Council was required to make this determination and he was not in a position to advise. After the years of experience that Mayor Morris has — one would expect that she would know this by now.

Then Councillor MacEachern — ever interested in her image as the defender of openness and transparency — asked why the special meeting did not have a section for Open Forum so residents could provide input.  She insisted that the procedural bylaw be waived so the public would have their opportunity for input. Once the bylaw was waived to allow the public to speak — guess what?

Rebecca Beaton (friend of Cllr MacEachern) just happened to have prepared notes to comment from (which apparently she offered to share with the press after the meeting).

Walter Mastranerio (yet another friend of Cllr MacEachern) was also prepared with a question.

Both questions were in relation to the accuracy of the tabulation machines.

Then the Mayor and Councillors Gaertner, MacEachern and Wilson proceeded to grill Mr Leach with their concerns about the accuracy of the tabulation machines.

Anyone else see where this is going?

Mind you this was all done — contrary to the Procedural By-law — without any motion on the floor. But then we have come to expect 2 things under the leadership of outgoing Mayor Morris;

  1. procedure/rules are a convenience only to be used when to their advantage, and
  2. why ask questions of staff in advance when you have the opportunity to grill them in front of your colleagues to show just how smart you are. Of course, remember, staff are governed by professional conduct that does not allow them to respond as you or I might want to respond.

Cllr Buck finally having seen enough of Mr Leach browbeat and answer the same questions repeated in different ways, stated the questions “appeared to her” to be orchestrated. Which immediately led to a Point of Order from Cllr MacEachern with a demand for an apology. When Councillor Buck refused on the grounds that she was entitled to make an observation of what it “appeared” to her, Mayor Morris demanded she leave the table. Cllr Buck graciously declined.

This lead to Mayor Morris calling a recess and demanding that the entire audience clear the chambers.

The result of this demand from Mayor Morris was actual laughter from the audience — who all seemed to know she had absolutely no authority to order such a thing. It was another comical highlight in the tragedy unfolding before us.

Once the meeting got back underway, with Cllr Buck in her chair — and no apology — the Council finally made a motion.  Cllr Collins-Mrakas pointed out that the motion was illegal since Council was trying to direct the manner in which the recount was conducted which is contrary to the Municipal Act. Upon question by Mayor Morris — Mr Cooper confirmed that Cllr Collins-Mrakas was correct and the motion had to be replaced.

Then Cllr MacEachern tried her best to get a motion on the floor that allowed the candidate to review each and every ballot “before” it was placed in the voting machine — effectively turning the machine recount into a hand count — since only an approved ballot would be counted by the machines.

Now everyone saw where things were going 🙂

Again the issue of Council directing the manner of the recount was questioned. Plus, the Municipal Act states that a new manner of recounting from the original count requires a judicial review and that is why Council is forbidden from meddling. But that didn’t stop them from trying.

In the end, MacEachern finally backed off — since it was clear that Mr Leach and Cooper were prepared to stick to their guns on this issue — and if the vote was not conducted in accordance with the rules as specified by the Municipal Act, then there would have been basis for a judicial review by any candidate.

Once the vote was called the final tally was;

  • Yea: Morris, MacEachern, Gaertner, Gallo and Wilson
  • No: Buck, Collins-Mrakas

Of note, through the entire meeting Cllr Gallo did not utter 1 word other than to vote in the recorded vote. Hopefully this was reflection of his aversion to the behaviour of his colleagues. We have high expectations for Mr Gallo this term since his place at the table is due to election — not selection.

Finally, 1 hour and 45 minutes later, we have Council direction for a recount — which must be completed within 15 days according to the Municipal Act. This means it should be completed before the inauguration.

BH

Posted in Election 2010 | 73 Comments »

Lawsuit Update

Posted by auroracitizen on November 2, 2010

The following was reported in this weeks Auroran.

Howard Winkler, Lawyer for Ms Morris indicated that the only amendment was to make it clear the plaintiff was Ms. Morris.

Translation?: Taxpayers are still funding the lawsuit that she will personally benefit.

Wendy Gaertner stated: “the scuttlebutt was not off-base” when asked whether Councillor knew whether they were voting on a lawsuit as rumoured. She went on to say “we didn’t know what that something would be, in fact I found out what that something would be via the newspaper.”

Translation?: Councillors did not discuss a lawsuit behind closed doors. Morris took the motion from Council and decided on the lawsuit herself. With her eligible to win $6,000,000 personally.

Makes one wonder if Councillors voted for other things over the years when they didn’t know what that “something” would be.

Given the closeness of the votes for Granger and Wilson — wonder how they feel towards Phyllis these days. Did her personal lawsuit cost them re-election? This lawsuit will also follow them in any future attempt to seek re-election.

Posted in Election 2010, Legal | 17 Comments »

Like a Bad Smell – Some Things Just Won’t Go Away

Posted by auroracitizen on October 30, 2010

Granger files request for recount

By Sean Pearce | Oct 29, 2010

Incumbent lost seat by 21 votes Monday

The ninth-place finisher in last week’s race for a council seat has requested a recount.

Incumbent Stephen Granger finished just 21 votes behind first-time candidate Paul Pirri Monday night.

In Aurora, voters elect eight councillors at-large, so the ninth-place showing leaves Mr. Granger without a seat at the table.

Mr. Granger couldn’t be reached for comment by deadline.

The request for a recount will be considered during a special council meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m.

When reached for comment Friday, Mr. Pirri said he isn’t particularly concerned about the prospect of a recount.

A candidate is entitled to ask for one, he said, adding he’ll accept the outcome, whatever it may be.

“It’s his democratic right,” he said. “I place full faith in the process, so whatever happens, happens. I’m not too stressed about it really.”

There is a 30-day time-frame from when official results are calculated for a recount request to be filed.

A council or school board can pass a resolution for a recount or the minister of municipal affairs can order one.

Unbelievable as it may sound — the same people who refused to “waste” tax payers money on a by-election 18 months into the term are now considering spending taxpayers money on a recount.

Seems it was 7 (corrected w/thanks to our readers)  years ago that MacEachern wasted our tax dollars on a recount to try to oust Councillor Buck. Now they want to try to keep Granger in. It will be interesting to hear their rational after the recount proves to have been a total boondoggle.

Maybe they would be willing to reimburse us for the wasted money.

Posted in Election 2010 | 65 Comments »

Article: Funding for Defamation Cases Close to Crossing Line

Posted by auroracitizen on October 29, 2010

This timely post was spotted on the website Law Times. Highlighting added by AuroraCitizen.

By Glenn Kauth | Publication Date: Monday, 18 January 2010

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201001186179/Commentary/Editorial-Funding-for-defamation-cases-close-to-crossing-line

Several recent cases in Ontario have raised the issue of how governments officials handle defamation lawsuits. A case that has drawn considerable scrutiny is that of Toronto Coun. Adrian Heaps, the defendant in a defamation lawsuit dating back to the time he was a candidate for city council. The city’s plan to cover his legal bills in the case will come before council again later this month as anger over the payout grows.

Part of the controversy centres on the fact Heaps wasn’t even a sitting councillor at the time of the offence. But elsewhere, municipal councils are funding defamation litigation in similarly contentious circumstances.

In Wellington County, for example, the municipality is covering the legal bills for an action launched by the mayor of Puslinch, Ont., Brad Whitcombe, and county chief administrative officer Scott Wilson.

That move prompted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene in a bid to dismiss the case. It argues paying the two officials’ legal costs amounts to an effort to circumvent legal prohibitions on governments from suing for libel.

In Toronto, the same questions came up last year when Coun. Sandra Bussin sought city money to help her with a defamation case she had launched. Now, dissent over the Heaps affair has prompted a legal challenge by the fledgling Toronto Party against the politicians who voted to pay him. It’s clear, then, that the issue has become a messy one for municipal councils.

In the case of politicians, it’s fairly obvious that paying their legal bills to sue members of the public represents a threat to free speech. Defending city councillors who face lawsuits over actions they take in the course of their duties is one thing, but funding cases they themselves undertake is another.

After all, they should expect legitimate criticism from the public and, if it’s unfair, they have plenty of venues and resources for rebutting it. If that’s not good enough, they can pay for the litigation themselves.

More difficult, however, are cases such as the Wellington County one. One of the plaintiffs there is a bureaucrat who, it’s arguable, should receive some legal protection from libelous comments. The allegations, a recent judgment in the dismissal motion noted, include innuendos of criminal behaviour on behalf of the plaintiffs on a local web site called smelly-welly.com.

In response to the CCLA intervention, the motions judge ruled there was insufficient legal authority to dismiss the case over the county funding. But it’s time the courts, or Queen’s Park, dealt with the issue.

Beyond the fact that one of the plaintiffs in the case is a politician, the county’s move could have an ulterior motive of trying to silence dissent under the guise of helping two of its officials with a legal issue. For his part, the judge noted those questions might come out at trial. Hopefully, that happens given the ongoing controversies.

Certainly, defending public officials in court over matters related to their duties is legitimate. But funding the lawsuits they themselves initiate comes dangerously close to crossing the line. As a result, it’s time for a thorough discussion on when it’s appropriate to pay for public officials’ legal bills in defamation cases.

— Glenn Kauth

Posted in Legal | 37 Comments »

Legal Chill Settles in Aurora in Response to Lawsuit

Posted by auroracitizen on October 28, 2010

The following letter was received from one of our readers last week.

Dear AuroraCitizen Moderator,

I know that this may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse has gone, but is it possible to have my post of (date/time removed by moderator) removed?

While I recognize that all posts are already in the hands of the Mayor and her lawyers, and what I posted cannot be “undone”, I believe that the Aurora lawsuit will soon be receiving national attention. Many readers will be looking at the AuroraCitizen in the coming days, weeks and months, and I have no wish to be potentially dragged into this as well.

In spite of this request, please know that I fully support the AuroraCitizen and its moderators. My heart goes out to all of you.

The commentary on the AC pales by comparison to the vitriol against Ford, Smitherman, and McGuinty every day in the comments in the Sun, Star and Globe.

We hope that with our new Council this type of fear will dissipate and once again the freedom to publicly criticize an elected official will be acceptable in our community.

Posted in Election 2010, Legal | 25 Comments »

Geoff Dawe Says Thanks

Posted by auroracitizen on October 27, 2010

This is my first official communication as Mayor Elect and my very enjoyable first task is to thank all my volunteers!

It has been a fabulous experience. I met wonderful people — and made many new friends.  It makes me proud to call Aurora my home.

I noted early in my campaign that if it takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a community to elect a Mayor. And, a big part of this community are the volunteers who gave so graciously of their time, talents and treasures. Without all your support and hard work I would not have been successful. You worked days, nights and weekends for weeks and months to make this a reality — and for that support I could not be more grateful.

I am humbled by the confidence and trust you and the people of Aurora have placed in me. Thank you!

Thank you for placing your faith in me. Thank you for the opportunity to work together to put the Aura back in Aurora.

It is my commitment to work as hard for you in the next 4 years, as you did for Monday night.

I am extremely proud that we ran a clean, hard-fought race and we can all hold our heads high for demonstrating that an election campaign that follows the rules and stays focused on the issues can be successful.

It’s often said, that behind every successful man is a good woman – in my case it is 4 — so a special thanks to my wife and daughters for all their support and hard work.

I would like to offer a special note of recognition to all who put their names forward for this election — and especially the many volunteers who unselfishly worked for each candidate. Aurora is a stronger, more vibrant community because of your commitment. Running for public office takes a special dedication and anyone who puts their name forward deserves our thanks.

I would also like to recognize the large numbers of people who worked election night, and leading up to the election, to make sure every citizen of Aurora had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. They are often the unrecognized support workers who make each election possible.

And, lastly, I would like to offer my congratulations to those Councillors who have been elected. The community faces a number of challenges and I am excited about working together as we move forward.

On Monday, the residents of Aurora delivered a message. They spoke loudly and clearly that they demand change:

  • They demand Leadership that listens — and returns respect and civility to the Council table
  • They demand we rebuild our sense of Community — where we work with each other
  • They demand Accountability that is not just words — but truly open and transparent
  • They demand action!

And, with the help and support of the new Council, that is what I intend to do — to hit the ground running and start getting things done!

As I clearly stated during my campaign — my initial priorities will be to address the issues of:

  • Building a team with fellow Council members and with staff
  • A Strategic Plan that serves the needs of residents based on input from all residents
  • The Integrity Commissioner & The Code of Conduct
  • Stop wasting taxpayers hard-earned dollars on legal battles and consultant fees that bring no value to taxpayers
  • Building a 2011 budget that reflects the needs of all Aurora residents

These will be our priorities beginning with the first Council meeting. The residents have “hired” me and my fellow Councillors to get things done – and there is no reason to delay.

It is time to put the past behind us and look forward to the future. The residents have spoken. It is time for the Council to act on their behalf.

Thank you for the privilege of leading the new team that will put the Aura back in Aurora.

Geoff Dawe

Posted in Election 2010, Geoff Dawe | 40 Comments »

Guest Post: Blog Reflects the Voice of the People

Posted by auroracitizen on October 27, 2010

More than once, someone has visited this blog and referred to its posters as a group — either using terms like “groupthink” or saying that this is a “pro-somebody” blog or an “anti-somebody-else” blog.

I can see why it might look that way. I can see how a new visitor here might wade through some of the postings — particularly the more political postings — and feel like the poor new kid stepping into a ritzy private school where everyone knows the “in” jokes and the cool kids run the lunch-room.

It probably feels like we’re all of a single mind, wearing the same tee shirts, drinking the same Kool-Aid. The truth is, I’m an occasional poster on this blog, and I’ve never met any of the others here. Not a one. I wouldn’t know them if I tripped over them on Yonge Street. I wear my own tee shirts and drink my own drinks.

I post here through the kindness and generosity of the blog owners and moderators. The mere fact that I have actually read those postings about “groupthink” or the blog being “pro-somebody” shows that the blog-owners are not, in fact, promoting a single-minded outlet reserved for only one tailored view.

In past months — maybe in past years — there has been a veritable river of strong opinion on this blog with respect to members of our town council. That, I believe, reflects the sheer frustration of many residents toward the actions and words of our previous council.The blog did not manufacture the frustration — au contraire — the blog has provided a never-before-available place for the frustrated to talk about their frustration.

It is not “groupthink”. It is not an orchestrated attack on anyone. The blog has provided a slate for the honesty of outraged voices. At the same time, it has also provided an outlet for some who were content with the prior political line-up. If it appeared that the outraged populace heavily outweighed the contented ones, well, that only reflects the audience — those local residents who were outraged, who happened to surf the Internet looking for information and who decided to post their opinions clearly outweighed those who were content with the status quo.

How do I know this? Certainly not because I know the blog-owners or bought into anybody else’s agenda. I know this because — like I said — I’ve seen far too many postings that I disagree with. I know this because nobody here knows who I am. Nobody has told me what to think or what to post. I just showed up one day, uninvited, and started typing.

I don’t see this blog as being much different than letters to the editor of a newspaper. The difference is, here in the blog, people can quickly and easily comment on the opinions of others. Anyone can write the editorial of the week — like this one. And nobody’s buying full-colour weekly ads — there is no worry that the opinions of the audience might offend those who financially support the venue.

It’s human nature to lump people into groups: soccer moms, liberals, rednecks, hippies and puffed-up-business suits. People don’t like to admit that they make generalizations, but it’s not necessarily a hateful trait. It’s simply our brains providing shortcuts by which we can process information about people.

I don’t think the posters on this blog can be so easily shaped into a shortcut. Each of us is too different from the others. Some people here know other posters. Some people here are active in town politics; others are only interested when there’s an election.

Some, like me, simply enjoy reading what those who live in the same town think, as well as blathering on about my own opinions.

Like this one.  🙂

Stephanie

Posted in Community Corner, Guest Post | 19 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »