The Level Of Discourse On Sanduskyregister.com

Bryan Dubois
Mar 23, 2010

Kathleen Old in today's print edition:

You've got to ask yourself:  What are the motivations behind leaving comments on the Sandusky Register?  It's different for everybody - but for a portion of the readership, they simply want to incite flame wars with other readers.  Which is pointless to read, impossible to follow, and pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved. 

I read alot of blogs on the internet and the ones that are most successful have a core readership who engage each other with a healthy amount of snark, but they know where to draw the line.  The level of discourse would raise if before hitting "post" a commenter thought about the reason they're posting what they're posting.  Saying something just to insult or hurt demonstrates how human beings would like to say hurtful things in person but don't because it would be socially unacceptable.  Anonymity on the internet removes the social check on human behavior.

The commenting section can teach you a few things about human beings:  This is what we think in secret.  If you give someone an opportunity to say whatever they want without any social punishment for irrational, illogical or just plain old ignorant comments, you get to see a the "secret" side of a reader's thoughts.  So in a way, it's a good thing because you really get a feel for what people think. 

The quality of comments have improved since comment registration because a commenter can be watched for patterns of abuse.  It's a whole lot easier to determine who is worth interacting with. 

Honestly, if "Julie R." shouted on the street corner some of the things she writes on these threads, would you stop and listen to her for any other reason than morbid curiosity?

Because that's what this is.  We're on a streetcorner and we're talking to our fellow citizens.  If you take this opportunity seriously it could be used for something positive instead of something negative.

The possibilities with the internet are endless.  It's an ever changing and relatively untapped resource (locally) if people were just more careful about their tone, their indignitaion would be taken seriously by people who are in positions to change public policy.  if your ideas are shared in a persuasive way they could take root in the public consciousness and bring about real change in the way local government does business.

Comments

John Doe

To Firelands 411:

RIGHT ON BROTHER!  RIGHT ON! ! ! !

Now you will soon see Julie R responding to me.  I've stopped responding to her because I'm tired of her accusations without evidence.  She already thinks 411 and Remove Johnson have "Inside Information;"   Hey 411, what about that "Inside Information" you have along with Remove Johnson?  I think she lumped me in their too, but I can't remember for sure -  I can't keep all her posts straight in my head - it's not worth the effort and "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

She's just "shouting on the street corner."  So go ahead Julie R, go ahead and take your shots - have it....................ZZZZZZZZ.......................ZZZZZZZZZZ......................................ZZZZZZ..........................

Julie R.

Try criminally changing the irrevocable Trust of an elderly, incompetent Erie County Judge before he dies without the knowledge of his family members.............the above picture looks exactly like his daughter!  And his son, too!

As for John Doe----you sure do appear to be taking Julie R.'s accusations personally. 

Bryan Dubois

That may be entirely true Julie.   I'm simply saying that your tone takes away from the impact of your complaints.

Bryan Dubois

Just because John Doe agrees with me doesn't mean that I agree with his tone or his childish comments either.

Julie R.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Elsebeth Baumgartner tell about the PATTERN that is used by the Court system whenever somebody tries to expose wrongdoing or corruption...........BEFORE the bogus charges come into the picture?

Didn't she say how the Courts will first try and make light of  the serious allegations/complaints that are made? Didn't she say how they try to make it look like the serious allegations/complaints are silly and have no merit? Didn't she even say that they try to make the party making the allegations/complaints look FOOLISH or even crazy? 

Now correct me if I'm wrong on this: Isn't there a Law in all States that state it's a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to withhold /conceal or destroy a person's Will?  Isn't there also a Law that states when a Probate Court is put on notice that a Will is being withheld/concealed the Probate Judge is to order the party/parties responsible into Court and ENFORCE its production ? I believe the Law also states if the party/parties refuse they can be sent to jail. 

Considering how you seem to be following the same PATTERN here with this juvenile blog,  I would like to thank you for answering my question as to why Matt Westerhold exposed your identity.

Bryan Dubois

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Elsebeth Baumgartner tell about the PATTERN that is used by the Court system whenever somebody tries to expose wrongdoing or corruption...........BEFORE the bogus charges come into the picture?

Maybe she did.  The criminal charges she faced were separate from the issues she brought up.  She attacked so many people that it bothered nobody to see her put in jail.  If she was right about all that she said, why did she consistently lose in court?  (Not a rhetorical question - I'm looking for a response from you.)  She was combative, unreasonable, and prone to making poor reactionary decisions when put in stressful situations.  That's not to say that everything she said was a lie, but on the other hand, not everything she said was true either.  The problem is that when you tell a misleading story nobody knows what's true and what's not true.  Who listens to untrustworthy people?  If you have to defend the accuracy of your allegations, you've already lost.

Didn't she say how the Courts will first try and make light of  the serious allegations/complaints that are made?

Yeah, that's typically how it plays out.  When you get caught doing something wrong you try to make light of it.  That's how people have reacted since the beginning of time.  So what? 

Didn't she say how they try to make it look like the serious allegations/complaints are silly and have no merit?

Yes.  And if your complaints are meritless, there is no public outcry when the court dismisses them.

Didn't she even say that they try to make the party making the allegations/complaints look FOOLISH or even crazy? 

She made it pretty easy, didn't she?

Now correct me if I'm wrong on this: Isn't there a Law in all States that state it's a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to withhold /conceal or destroy a person's Will? 

Again, if you have proof of this alleged criminal act, then you need to give it to proper authority and possibly to a media outlet to expose it to the public.  If your complaints have validity they will be addressed by the court.  If the court ignores your concerns you need to figure out how to present your story to the public in order to hold the court accountable.  Spending alot of time going back and forth on a blog isn't going to get you where you need to be.

Isn't there also a Law that states when a Probate Court is put on notice that a Will is being withheld/concealed the Probate Judge is to order the party/parties responsible into Court and ENFORCE its production ? I believe the Law also states if the party/parties refuse they can be sent to jail. 

Same response as above.

Considering how you seem to be following the same PATTERN here with this juvenile blog,  I would like to thank you for answering my question as to why Matt Westerhold exposed your identity.

I never had a problem with it.  Not sure why you think it's such a big deal.  The entire city commission knows who writes this blog.  I have frequent conversations with some of them.  Pretty much everyone at the Register knows too.  It never really was a secret to begin with.  Do you have a problem with it, and if so, why?

Oliver Hardy

Firelands411's favorite "tin foil hat rack" has something to say. Well Firelands411, my opinion of you has went up some. It appears that you need some more comments here on your blog. I have to give you credit because you are active with your blog by RESPONDING to comments. Other than Miss Sue who sometimes responds in her blog, you are the top dog and I want to see your blog become very active with comments. Don't be too hard on Julie because all she is doing is expressing her problems with the courts. What is so bad about that? How will people know what is going on if people don't share their experiences with dishonest people in authority?

Do you know of another way to expose these dishonest people that take oaths of office and promise to be honest and follow the laws and rules? Look at all these people that post comments to help out those that are dishonest? Some people are just plain boneheads and refuse to see both sides of things. Look at these bozos that put Johnson back into office. There ought to be a law that only informed people should be allowed to vote, but this is only my opinion. If I don't have enough information about a candidate or issue, then I remain neutral and vote "undecided" but still my undecided vote is still a vote and I did not cancel somebody else's vote.

The question is how does one expose dishonest people in the courts and government? Isn't Julie's comments about her problems with the courts one way to make people aware of what is going on? I found a "letter to the editor" on the internet that shows how one may expose those dishonest people in public office.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/02/21/opinion/letters/135500.txt

QUOTE- "Until the national media starts exposing these individuals for who they are, and the voting public gets informed and takes action at the ballot box, nothing will change."

So until the media or blog starts exposing the dishonest people in public office and the voting public gets INFORMED and takes action at the ballot box, NOTHING will change.

So, Firelands411, it is your blog but what in your opinion is the correct way to expose those that are dishonest? I don't see anything wrong with Julie's comments. She does repeat herself but maybe many did not see her past comments. And from what I can see, not many people read the Sandusky Register news blogs. I have no problems with any of Julie's comments unless you are getting some heat over her comments.

Bryan Dubois

Comments interlaced.

Firelands411's favorite "tin foil hat rack" has something to say. Well Firelands411, my opinion of you has went up some. It appears that you need some more comments here on your blog. I have to give you credit because you are active with your blog by RESPONDING to comments. Other than Miss Sue who sometimes responds in her blog, you are the top dog and I want to see your blog become very active with comments.

Sue Daugherty is an extremely busy person.  She's made her life about social acitivism and so I can't knock her for her lack of blogging.  She's actually making a difference for people who need help and all we're doing is blathering back and forth on a blog.  :)

Don't be too hard on Julie because all she is doing is expressing her problems with the courts. What is so bad about that?

Nothing.  I just think she needs to be completely accurate and more careful with her tone.  She sounds to me like a disguntled probate court litigant who only cares about government corruption because she was had by it.  No offense to her.  Most people are like that - only caring about injustice if and when it affects them directly.

How will people know what is going on if people don't share their experiences with dishonest people in authority?

You just have to be careful with who you believe.  People tend to exaggerate, and leave out details that reflect poorly on themselves.  if you're going to trumpet something, you have to make sure there is an actual complaint that is worthy of exposure.  The media has always decided what is newsworthy and what is not newsworthy.  Blogs have changed that because they've allowed ordinary people the ability to address any issues that concern them and if it resonates with other citizens the media starts to pay attention because they feel that they're "missing out" on an important issue.

Do you know of another way to expose these dishonest people that take oaths of office and promise to be honest and follow the laws and rules?

You develop a credible media source with this purpose in mind.  You stay positive.  You stay accurate.  You let people decide for themselves.

Look at all these people that post comments to help out those that are dishonest? Some people are just plain boneheads and refuse to see both sides of things. Look at these bozos that put Johnson back into office.

I agree.

QUOTE- "Until the national media starts exposing these individuals for who they are, and the voting public gets informed and takes action at the ballot box, nothing will change."

I agree but I don't think you can trust the national media to do it's job.  All politics are local.   If Erie County residents took care of Erie County and everyone else did the same thing, this country would be a very different place.  The internet can change society for the better or worse.  We have to choose and use the tools at our disposal to make those changes.

So until the media or blog starts exposing the dishonest people in public office and the voting public gets INFORMED and takes action at the ballot box, NOTHING will change.

So, Firelands411, it is your blog but what in your opinion is the correct way to expose those that are dishonest? I don't see anything wrong with Julie's comments. She does repeat herself but maybe many did not see her past comments. And from what I can see, not many people read the Sandusky Register news blogs. I have no problems with any of Julie's comments unless you are getting some heat over her comments.

No, i couldn't care less really.  I skim and ignore so many comments that Julie R.'s are just white noise.  I can tell by the opening sentence whether a comment is worth reading.  Most of the time they're not.  Then again, sometimes the insight in the comments are worth more than the actual article.

Like I said before, a positive thing to do is to create a media outlet that addresses what the mainstream media is supposed to address.  They're supposed to watch the government, not talk about what pets are available for adoption at the local pound.  The problem is that if all they talked about was government they'd sell no newspapers.  If public policy were as interesting as Desperate Housewives, we wouldn't have a problem - but unfortunately, government is usually boring.  I'm trying to make it interesting with video and non-typical commentary.  Thanks for adding to it!

Oliver Hardy

I can see that we will be having problems with communications since we both do not posses the gift of telepathy. Miss Sue is very busy and I like her a lot. I did not infer that I was "knocking" Miss Sue, what I inferred was that YOU are the "top dog" blogger for being active in your blog. One way communication is okay with the readers but you can't beat two way communications such as you have shown in your blog.

You wrote: "You develop a credible media source with this purpose in mind.  You stay positive.  You stay accurate.  You let people decide for themselves."

Firelands411, what is the purpose of your blog? Do opinions not matter? I can understand that you are looking for "accurate" information and want to develope a credible media source. People know some things because they are "insiders" and they see and hear things. But people are afraid and that I can understand. And some people cannot decide for themselves, they want others to decide for them.

You do agree that "bozos" put Johnson back into office as do I. I am about twice your age and I have seen the "Dumbing Down Of America" through the years. Until the American citizen becomes more informed (if they want too), it will be business as usual in local politics. As I mentioned before, most people are "boneheads" and I believe this. People seemed so much more informed in the 1960s and 1970s.

You wrote: "I agree but I don't think you can trust the national media to do it's job.  All politics are local.   If Erie County residents took care of Erie County and everyone else did the same thing, this country would be a very different place.  The internet can change society for the better or worse.  We have to choose and use the tools at our disposal to make those changes."

I agree with you. But until the average American WANTS to become informed, I don't see much change in the next few years. If everybody in America took care of politics at the local level, then I believe that things would work out fine at the state, national and even at the international level.

You wrote: "Like I said before, a positive thing to do is to create a media outlet that addresses what the mainstream media is supposed to address.  They're supposed to watch the government,.... "

I AGREE WITH YOU 100% here. But until the average American stops being a member of the "Dumbing Down of America" crowd, I hold little hope. If mainstream media refuses to print accurate and factual news about our government then it is up to Americans to search for the true news overseas in overseas newspapers as in Europe for example. You probably seen my comments on the other Sandusky Register news blogs. I write with simple words so that simple minded people can understand. I cannot see using "big words" that most people with a limited vocabulary could not understand. My simple words in my comments are done on purpose so that ALL readers can try to understand. But where is the spellchecker?

Good luck in your blog, I wish you much success. : )

Bryan Dubois

I misunderstood the comment you made about Miss Sue!  Sorry about that. 

Julie R.

I agree that I repeat myself quite often but most of the time it was done out of sarcasm just to pis* off the nasty character named Buff  and some of his/her buddies on the Baumgartner blogs. But if you notice my story is always the same. I am not a LIAR or a conspiracy theorist and neither have I made anything up. Everything I have said about this County and its dishonest, unfair and unlawful legal system is the TRUTH.  And I haven't even told it all......... 

I

Julie R, yeah, we're still out here.  Glad to see you're contininuing to make friends on the blogs!

Julie R.

Once again,  that picture is a perfect picture of what the Erie County prosecutor might see storming through his office door if the daughter of a deceased Erie County Judge ever found a fraud QuitClaims Deed filed in the Erie County Recorder's office and then a fraud POA concealed in the Lorain County Recorder. For sure, the Lorain County attorney and his law firm would see it and I'm sure some unethical crooks at an insurance company and a Huron bank would, too! 

Oh by the way, John Doe said "RIGHT ON BROTHER! RIGHT ON! ! ! ! Is he really your BROTHER?

 

Julie R.

Are you stalking me?

Oliver Hardy

Julie, thanks for explaining why you often repeat yourself. My personal opinion is that Baumgartner is not the evil person that the media has portrayed her to be. Firelands411 wrote: "She attacked so many people that it bothered nobody to see her put in jail." What does Firelands411 mean by "attacked so many people" that it bothered nobody? How many people were attacked? I cannot see criticizing those in public office as an attack.

I question why Baumgartner is even in prison. Baumgartner commented quite frequently on the old Sandusky Register forums and also the news blogs. I didn't see any comments that might suggest that she was evil, delusional or a nut case. Buff mentioned that he was a victim of Baumgartner. To me, Buff appeared as an evil and sinister person by the comments that Buff left behind on the news blogs. Perhaps Buff may want to share some of his wit with me? I welcome a hearty debate with Buff, I and others.

In reference to Baumgartner, Firelands411 wrote: "Who listens to untrustworthy people?"
The answer is the majority of people from what I have observed.

I am not at all biased against Baumgartner and feel that she spoke of a lot of truth. I feel that the courts were not fair to her. In short, I feel that she was made an example of to warn others not to ask too many questions of those in public office.

I see a lot of Border Patrol vehicles on the road now. Didn't Baumgartner mention that drugs were coming into the United States from Canada? Were any customs agents stationed on any of the islands in Lake Erie to check boats coming in from Canada? The Customs and Border Patrol web site is here: http://www.cbp.gov/

From my reading of the web site, I didn't see any enforcement of customs laws like you would see if traveling by vehicle from Canada or Mexico. It appears to me that it was up to the boater from Canada to report their landing on shore of the United States. Can you imagine a boat carrying drugs from Canada announcing their arrival?

When Reporting Is Required
Boaters must report their arrival to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if having
been engaged in any of the below activities:
• After having been at any foreign port or place including tying up at a foreign
dock or;
• After having had contact with any hovering vessel
The simple activity of fishing in Canadian waters will not require reporting
arrival to Customs and Border Protection.

City Girl

Julie, I wanted to give you some friendly internet advice.  I can tell that you have been through a mess, and you are obviously upset.  I don't want to take that away from you.  Having said that, I wonder if you are familiar with internet etiquette.  You come across on here as a flaming mad b*tch, and I don't think that is truly indicative of you.  Here's my advice - quit using all caps and bold letters.  They don't give emphasis in internet world.  Instead, it means you're yelling.  Nobody is going to listen to you if you are hostile.  They just aren't going to care.

 

Julie R.

Elsebeth Baumgartner wasn't evil, crazy or delusional. Everything she said about those corrupt you-know-what was the truth. And neither will she be in prison for 8 years.

Julie R.

If that picture isn't a picture of a deceased Erie County Judge's daughter storming through the office door of the Erie County prosecutor who else might it be? John Doe and Buff maybe standing on a steet corner yelling "SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE, BABY!"

You guys are a joke. About as big a joke as the corrupt Eeeerie County legal system.

City Girl

Guess my advice didn't matter.  Surprise, surprise!

John Doe

To City Girl:

It really shouldn't surprise you that Julie R didn't take your advice.  There have been a number of bloggers that have given her good, friendly advice in the past and she just either ignores it or she attacks them.  The Remove Johnson editior gave her some excellent advice on starting her own blog to produce the evidence on all these serious allagations that she is making.  But no, she would rather "shout at the Street Corner" instead.  (I can't remember if Remove Johnson was one that she ignored or attacked).

Early on I tried having a dialogue with her but it was useless; I just gave up and now I refuse to comment on her comments.  It's just not worth the time.   IF all that she writes is true, I truly feel bad for her.  But to date she has failed to produce any evidence to go with her accusations and her refusing to do so may just prove that she doesn't have any evidence; that it could just be a probate situation that didn't go the way she thought it should have gone.  She's the one making the accusations so she is the one that has the responsibility to produce the evidence to back up her accusations.  Don't expect the public to go between 2 or 3 counties looking all this stuff up.  That's HER responsibility to do so. 

Frankly, until I see evidence, I don't care.  So, she'll get on here and attack me;  that's fine, I could care less.  If it makes her feel better to get it out of her system, then fine.  It doesn't bother me one bit because everyone else knows how she is anyway.  It's just not worth my time to deal with her or to respond to her vicious comments.  In that way she is a lot like Elsabeth and that won't earn Julie R any respect or trustworthiness just as it didn't for Elsabeth.

 

Now on to something lighter:

To 411 -

Hey "Brother" how about you and I going out for a few drinks.  We've got some "Family" business to discuss.   And I didn't appreciate you referring to my earlier post as childish!  Just because you're the oldest and Mom & Dad always liked you the best doesn't mean that you have to be so mean to me!      :)

Ok.......I know, I know........I'll knock it off........I apologize..............................sorry......................................................

John Doe

By the way 411, I LOVE that picture of Julie R you have up here.  Where did you ever get that picture of her? ! ? !        :)

OK, I'll stop now.....really.............................................

Julie R.

Who are the number of highly impressive bloggers that gave Julie R. advice? You? The wackjobs that were making up Christmas carols on the Baumgartner blog? The SR's most hated commenter named Buff? I seem to recall several commenters on the Baumgartner blog said Buff was Bryan DuBois.

I also would like to mention that it must be horrible to have to check out  blogs everyday for fear of what somebody is going to post. In other words you are not as anonymous as you think you are, John Doe.

joe baumgartner

This comment was removed for violating the Sandusky Register's discussion guidelines.

joe baumgartner

This comment was removed for violating the Sandusky Register's discussion guidelines.