Comments on: Council poll: Law & order candidates and alcohol restriction opponents top councillor poll, could threaten Mayor

By: Goddess of Northside

Goddess of Northside — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:34:16 +0000

So much in a name. Sometimes people keep their name private in order for the debate to remain purely on the issue at hand. But if you are talking about an individual rather than an issue, I agree that you should include your own name. The editors control this. [Thank you for your views! Please see also our policy and the advice shown here.]

By: Hal Duell

Hal Duell — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:22:24 +0000

@Steve
I appreciate your desire for privacy, and I have never found your comments offensive. In fact, I have enjoyed answering your questions.
But my concern for not using full names is that too often on blogs around the world exchanges do get offensive, if not fully over the top. This threatens the very freedom that I for one find most attractive in the whole Net experience.
My worry is that here in Australia Senator Conroy, who is on record wanting to censor the Net, will force us all to toe his line. Or his successor will.
It’s happening elsewhere. I think China has recently required full names on one of its major social commentary sites. And didn’t the Yanks try hard for more control not so long ago? My prediction is they will try again.
A bit of preemptive good behavior might be called for.

By: David Chewings

David Chewings — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:08:42 +0000

@ “Steve” posted March 26 2012 @ 5:16pm
Whilst there are a myriad of personal reasons to choose anonymity, a good editor will generally prefer complete disclosure as it only enhances the reputation of the publication.
Please come out now “Steve”, it is not too late especially if you are sure about where you stand on various issues of local import.
Erwin has a quality website whose every comment is perused by all levels of government. I think the Alice News deserves our respect and therefore full disclosure on the comments sites.
Regards,
David Chewings.

By: But wait.... theres more

But wait.... theres more — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:07:44 +0000

Erwin only publishes last names if he can get good response out of it !!!! [ED – That is nonsense. We have never suppressed a surname. On the contrary, see our comments policy "... we strongly urge you to supply your full name for publication ..."]

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:56 +0000

@ Russell, Ian and Hal
I chose not to include my last name to maintain a separation between my political convictions and my professional and social relationships. Since I am not running for office, citing personal experience as proof of my arguments or blindly sniping at others who disagree with me I think I am entitled to my privacy.
My first comment on this site was to spark a conversation with Russell. I was not the one who began the condescending talk. I respect Hal’s views and have used this forum to ask for clarification and expansion for thoughts about his alcohol position.
Maybe I should just list Albatross, Kiwi, or any of the other “Last Names” that others use.

By: Bob Durnan

Bob Durnan — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:25:48 +0000

Kellie (@ Kellie Posted March 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm):
I hate to spoil your party, but although around 56% of voters have given their first preferences to members of the Gang of Four, they didn’t all give all their other preferences to other members of the GoF. This is because they weren’t all simply “anti-Damien voters”: some were just pro-Samih or pro-Eli voters, who have no particular beef against Mayor Ryan. Consequently, after preferences are distributed and counted, support for Damien from amongst these voters will be open to view. The real level of anti-Damien sentiment will be seen to be considerably less than 56.2%.
Damien may or may not still be mayor, but any attempts to characterise the whole 56.2% as members of a rabidly anti-Ryan bloc would be wrong.

By: Russell Guy

Russell Guy — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:01:58 +0000

To clarify my comments about those whom I said come from all levels of society and suffer from alcoholism in Alice Springs, it’s no shame to be addicted to this disease which is endemic to our society. There is help available in this community, many of whom do care and acknowledging that you have this addiction and need help is, of course, the classic AA approach to healing.
The shame is that this town is living in denial that it has a serious alcohol problem, statistically recognised as twice the national average, yet it was barely considered an issue by candidates representing the people in the local government election.
Despite having so many alcohol outlets, universally recognised means of avoiding the problems that Alice has with related crime and health issues are cause for such divided opinion.
Organisations like PAAC are lambasted, when they should be applauded for trying to bring some order into an alcohol-fuelled chaos that operates seven days a week.
It’s not as if they’re commentating from a vacuum as more than a few of their members are dealing with the fall-out on a daily basis in their professional lives as am I. Others castigate the NT Liquor Commission for being “weak.” Some say reinstate the “Living With Alcohol” program, but avoid the issue of restricting the excessive supply. Meanwhile, those who attempt to placate their addiction in public are considered to be a problem, rather than a victim.
My point is that my friend who is a church elder and an alcoholic is not alone in his struggle, but I know his despair is more keenly felt because this wide-spread insidious evil is considered normal.
The ASTC candidates who said “show me a solution,” or “I need to be persuaded” and worse, those who see no need for further restriction on a seven day per week supply schedule, leaving many voters confused, have been diminished by one independent candidate whose How to Vote card showed a last minute change by stating that he was prepared to take a tough stance on alcohol if elected. He won’t be, but he’s a hero in my eyes.

By: Paul Lelliott

Paul Lelliott — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:46:36 +0000

Kellie, with 72% of the votes counted you have ommitted to mention that 79% did not vote for Steve Brown and 82% did not vote for Eli Melky.
Any more useless stats you want to throw out there?

By: Hal Duell

Hal Duell — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:19:48 +0000

@ Ian Sharp
Well said!
This site provides a leading platform for a stimulating variety of opinions on local issues, and not just during the recent election. While we often disagree, we all live here, and there is simply no need to snipe from anonymity.
If you can’t sign it, don’t say it.

By: Ian Sharp

Ian Sharp — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:58:08 +0000

Russell, I suggest that people who don’t identify themselves be ignored. Say what you like about you or Janet Brown, you both identify yourselves. You both have the courage of your convictions.