Deleted

by eschmitt | Op/Ed | 3850 Views

Deleted as I no longer wish to participate on a website that practices non-transparent censorship.

Comments | 51

  • Submitted by eschmitt on November 3, 2016 at 10:36 am

    As always, if anyone reading

    As always, if anyone reading this knows more than me on the subject please, please show me I’m wrong. I don’t do this for a living, so there has to be someone reading this who knows more about this than I do.

    The residents of this town are on the hook for some big bucks if I’m right, so please, someone who knows more about this than me please show me where I’m wrong, because this time I really want to be wrong.

  • Submitted by cgrotke on November 4, 2016 at 7:23 am

    Found this in older notes

    Energy folks did participate:

    “Town Manager Elwell gave his update on the overall project status, telling the board that the project committee had met to discuss the West Brattleboro fire station plans, and that energy efficiency was a top issue at the meeting. Efficiency Vermont, the Energy Committee, and Energy Coordinator all took part in the discussion. ” May 18, 2016

  • Submitted by CarlyC on November 4, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I am not a professional in the industry but

    I live on the periphery. My partner is a builder specializing in high-performance building and I am part of an effort to provide higher education in building science here in Brattleboro, so I do work with many of the pros and have absorbed more than I ever thought I’d know about the topic.

    I live in West B and am very disappointed each time I drive by the fire house under progress. Many things could have been done better, that’s for sure.

    However, I can not confirm that your concerns about rotting potential are warranted without knowing more about the wall assembly. Also, note that the sheathing and insulation on a building are only part of a complicated, working system. There are a lot of things I don’t know about the air tightness and ventilation needs of a fire station. You haven’t factored any of that into your equation, but I would expect the designers, any energy modelers involved and/or Efficiency Vermont have.

    You appear to have done a great deal of research and you are correct on some things, but I see some inaccuracies, especially in your explanations and clams about air-tightness, vapor barriers, leakage and ventilation. I am not going point for point, but for instance, XPS is semi-impermeable and the permeance changes with the thickness. At 1″ it is rated at a permeance of 1.1, and .55 at 2 inches, and I expect the professionals, who should have the bigger picture you are missing, have factored that in.

    I personally would have preferred to have seen this presented in a more balanced fashion, however I do not want to discourage you from speaking about your concerns. One of the very many things I love about my community is that so many people are willing to do so.

    And I am glad you have provided a space for me to voice my disappointment with this project. This is Brattleboro! We have some of the top building science experts in the world, and some of the best designers and builders right here! Our municipal buildings should be glowing examples of progress, supporting local economy and sourcing local materials. It pains me to see otherwise.

    • Submitted by eschmitt on November 4, 2016 at 9:29 am

      I wish I shared your

      I wish I shared your confidence that the half million dollars we have spent on architectural services for these buildings purchased sufficiently thorough work that those calculations were properly done, especially since right now the recommendations of many variations of the 2012 building code encourage assemblies that *will* rot and this is a known issue.

      Given how mediocre to poor the design is in every other respect, as you have also noticed, IMO it casts doubt on the competence of the designer with regard to up-to-date energy design, of which vapor permeability is a part.

      If your assumption is correct (and I hope it is), then these concerns can be addressed by a .pdf of the wall assembly details and necessary math showing that this potential issue has been addressed.

      What do you think of the moist sheathing due to being colder than the dew point issue and what seems to me to be an obvious disaster of including a sheet of poly on the interior of the studs (if that is indeed the plan) given the low vapor permeability of the exterior foam?

      I certainly don’t know much about what differing ventilation and airtightness requirements would be for a fire station. I am assuming that the rule of thumb to build as tight as possible and utilize well controlled mechanical ventilation is in effect. Designing an intentionally leaky building when HRV’s are now commonplace seems bizarre to me, especially given I have to assume that the garage area will be separated from the quarters and other rooms as far as ventilation is concerned.

      I’m also pretty sure that water vapor behaves like water vapor regardless of the use of a building and the wall assembly I am seeing doesn’t appear any different than that of a residential structure, which is all that I am familiar with.

      When you have time and if you are willing I’m curious what I am wrong about in terms of air-tightness, leakage and ventilation. While I was being fairly general, I’m a bit baffled as to what I may have gotten wrong there.

      As for the details you did provide, as you point out XPS is semi-impermeable, not semi-permeable or permeable. At 1.1@1″ it is still far more impermeable than tyvek housewrap at 58, commercial at 28, typar at 13.7 and even felt paper at 8.

      I do not know what the minimum vapor permanence for this wall assembly is, however given the dew point issue with the sheathing, we are playing with fire (well, water actually) to be applying low-perm materials on both sides of the wall. If theres documentation of a minimum permeability rating for the specified wall assembly and the assembly meets that minimum, I’ll happily withdraw my concerns.

      Given your experience, would you be willing to also e-mail the town manager and selectboard to request a copy of the relevant documentation to ensure that the proper calculations were done?

      • Submitted by CarlyC on November 4, 2016 at 4:34 pm

        To clarify,

        I haven’t made any assumptions, nor have I claimed to have confidence in the building. I simply stated that the details you provided weren’t enough for me to label the project a potential disaster at that time.

        If poly is being used, yes I am concerned.

        Looks like you are going to have your hands full dealing with this, but unless something changes in the way Brattleboro goes about building projects I think these types of issues will simply continue. I would like to see Brattleboro ditch the design-bid-build model that forces us to go with shoddy construction, cheap materials and labor, and ends up costing more in the end because it prioritizes immediate cost over long-term savings and quality construction.

        The ideal situation for high-performance construction is using an integrated team approach. Until we change the process by which our buildings are designed and built, we may always end up with mediocre (or worse) construction.

  • Submitted by eschmitt on November 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    Some new info, we have a problem

    I just received word back from Peter Elwell, who forwarded an explanation by the architect responsible for the design.

    They are in fact specifying a mold sandhich where there will be 1″ of XPS exterior foam and an interior poly vapor barrier. The explanation relies on the assembly being able to dry to the exterior *through* the foam.

    This goes against piles of real-world data that shows this doesn’t work and results in moisture problems aggravated by cold seathing contacting warm and moist interior air that *will* get through the thousands of screw and nail hole penetrations and always not perfect sealing around electrical boxes and such.

    Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of water that are likely contained within the not entirely dry framing lumber that will be sealed in the wall.

    I have reached out to Eli Gould and to Martin Halloday of greenbuildingadvisor.com for information.

    At this point I believe the architect is proceeding under bad data, given the amount of reported problems with this wall design.

    Additionally, I stopped by the project today and took a closer look and talked with some carpenter friends and theres a myriad of other problems with this building, including using corrugated culvert pipes as concrete forms for piers which will almost certainly badly frost heave (Why didn’t they use smooth forms?) and the lack of taped joints on the XPS foam boards coupled with visible gaps in some locations that completely undermines their purpose (a workmanship issue).

    Furthermore, after having a closer look at just how many studs are in these walls and how many of them are doubled, tripled and quadrupled up, I have to ask the energy committee how this extremely poor wall design passed muster.

    The framing factor in this building will significantly reduce thermal performance below the 20+5 r value specified and given the cost of heating fuel its mind-boggling why this building has not been designed to be better insulated. The cost is usually a wash within a few years and a savings after that when coupled with cheaper HVAC due to not needing as much heat output and fuel savings.

    • Submitted by Vidda on November 5, 2016 at 8:36 am

      Responsible for the design

      By the way, Erik, if you get time, would mind taking a look at the I-91 bridge construction? 🙂

      • Submitted by eschmitt on November 5, 2016 at 9:18 am

        The stone-like concrete is

        The stone-like concrete is pretty.

        Thus is the extent of my knowledge about large bridges 😉

        • Submitted by eschmitt on November 5, 2016 at 3:13 pm

          Though, I did enjoy that a

          Though, I did enjoy that a southern company was hired and a reason given for a major delay was essentially “We didn’t realize Vermont winters were cold”.

    • Submitted by MichaelB on November 7, 2016 at 6:41 am

      WB Fire Sta

      Eli Gould has given me permission to post the following:

      ” (From Eli Gould, member of the PFC for years and also owner of a design/build firm specializing in high performance wood frame construction): I have been following and appreciate all the citizen concern and review of the details at West B. I also have pushed and advocated for many of the same concerns and hope at least before too much speculation fills the forum that I can meet with a few of the most concerned and expert opinions, in advance of a site meeting and inspection which I’ll be doing in preparation for an extra/advance of insulation blower door test which I’ve helped Efficiency Vermont to contribute. I do believe I’ve gotten a few details lined up including a variable perm membrane to the inside and an elastomeric sealant (EcoSeal) on inside of the air barrier sheathing, and a testing protocol before insulation that will allow us to work together with the contractors to improve the infiltration numbers before finishes get applied. I’d be happy to go over this with Mr Schmitt, my peer and friend Martin Holliday, or anyone else who is concerned, but won’t have time to get very involved in a public forum or with too much overtones. Like others on the citizen board, I’ve been volunteering some of my very limited time to help and am sensitive to the budget, process, and good intent of most all parties. I will try to answer a targeted email or two this week and let anyone concerned when I can meet to coallate inspection items into one list before I go into the blower door test preparations. Thanks for the watchdog effort and concern! “

      • Submitted by eschmitt on November 7, 2016 at 9:11 am

        Thanks for posting this.The

        Thanks for posting this.

        The variable perm membrane instead of the poly specified by the overpaid architect sounds hopeful.

        It has likely been quite obvious that I think very little of the architect hired for this project and am furious at the amount of money we’ve paid him for a glorified garage but I have great respect for Mr. Gould’s knowledge and experience (By repute, I’ve never met him).

        I’d be very eager to meet with folks with superior expertise, details to be handled off-forum.

        Giving this smart-membrane the benefit of the doubt that it will mitigate potential moisture issues, I remain disappointed that the building as a whole is so poorly insulated. Hopefully as am I able to find a few minutes in between my own obligations over the next few days, the reasons why the decision was made to insulate at minimal levels will become clearer.

  • Submitted by cgrotke on November 15, 2016 at 7:58 am

    Update

    This story and subsequent letter to the Town got attention, and will be on the Selectboard agenda tonight.

    Short version – after some architectural review, changes will be made.

    The power of the pen… : )

  • Submitted by eschmitt on December 9, 2016 at 10:36 am

    Just an update, long delayed

    Just an update, long delayed due to other draws on my time and energy:

    I was waiting to make a follow-up post after meeting with Eli Gould, but after his initial communication he never got back to me. At this point it appears moot, so the update:

    It does appear that the vapor barrier issue that resulted from the overpaid architect specifying a mold sandwich via the use of poly sheeting *and* exterior rigid foam has been addressed via the use of an alternative interior vapor barrier.

    This is not an ideal solution, but at such a late stage of the game it was probably the only one available without tearing out existing work to do it over again properly. (Properly being to fire this price-gouging architect and thickening the exterior foam and using furring/strapping to nail the siding to, as one option, double stud walls being another…. both would address the architect’s transparently lazy dodge about a nailbase for the fiber cement siding and would address the moisture issue while also massively increasing the building’s thermal performance)

    I swung by the town office a few weeks back to have a look at the plans and briefly chatted with Peter Elwell (very briefly, I was running late and had an appointment I had to get to, totally my fault). He informed me the plans I was looking at were no longer accurate as they had been revised by Efficiency Vermont and locals like Eli Gould and project manager Steve Horton.

    Apparently a few folks were aware of this issue and had been intending on addressing it, they just hadn’t gotten around to it prior to my sounding the alarm very publicly in my characteristic bull in a china shop manner.

    I like Elwell and I think he’s pushing things in the right direction, but after chewing on it a bit I disagree partly with his position that a robust process is in place to catch this stuff.

    The fact remains that we have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Connecticut architect who designed a glorified garage with an absolute minimum of insulation and an obsolete, problem-ridden moisture control strategy.

    Our process relies on citizen volunteers to fix the work of $200+/hr “professionals” and those volunteers who have the expertise likely don’t have the time, and those with the time probably don’t have the expertise to re-do work that should have been done right the first time, given its enormous cost.

    I am glad to hear that efficiency vermont was involved in the process and made revisions to the design, but again, why are we paying this architect so much money for crap work?

    I havn’t gotten a straight answer from anyone about why such a poorly insulated building was specified except for guesses of “We wanted to get the initial price tag down so voters would approve it” which is short-sighted in the extreme. We’ll be paying enough extra to heat this building for the next 50 years that we could have paid for extra insulation 5 times over due to that short sightedness.

    I for one would have preferred the price tag gotten reduced by firing a an architect who clearly was not a good fit for a project of this type and utilizing more appropriately priced designers with expertise in super-insulation and energy efficiency.

  • Submitted by Vidda on December 9, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    The rotten fruit with the good

    Whenever I drive by the ground up construction of the new firehouse, I can’t help but think of Erik’s article. It amazes me that despite the clarity of his stated analysis, it apparently, through no fault of his, came too late. Sometimes you just gotta eat the rotten fruit with the good.

  • Submitted by CarlyC on December 9, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    A different perspective

    I feel that to make any progress, we need to zoom out from the focus on the expensive architect who designed a mediocre, code-compliant building, and from individual buildings that are already underway. The key is long-term change, and we need to look at the process that forces us into making less-than-ideal decisions regarding our municipal buildings.

    I suggest interested parties learn about the procurement process. I don’t know exactly how things go in Brattleboro, but we may follow a system that developed a long time ago, maybe 150 years ago. Yet building science has only been on the rise for the last few decades. There may be no built-in system in place to prioritize building science in this process (in our case we have an energy committee which is a good step, but I reckon they are pretty limited in what they can do.)

    Some issues:

    Certain restrictions can disqualify the most qualified professionals to do the work.

    There is legal recourse bidders can take against nepotism, and the measures in place while meant to protect us can sometimes limit our options.

    Bid bonds and performance bonds exclude any small business that doesn’t have tons of capital – sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars – to lock up on a job like this. As a taxpayer, we want that insurance. But again, we sometimes exclude the most qualified professionals this way. It leaves us with no option but to hand the job to the same couple of large businesses who may not be doing their finest work partly because they know there is little other competition that can carry bonds.

    Even when the contractor who wins the bid does quality work, they are legally obligated to carry out what is designed, in this case an inferior design. And this circles back to how the bidding process leads to code-minimum construction.

    An architect who does high-performance design can’t win the contract, because as mentioned above, the up front construction cost for high-performance is higher despite long term savings. This circles back to town finances, but ultimately the fact that our lending industry currently has no way to value high-performance buildings above code compliant ones. There are people working on that in our community, as we speak. The goal is to properly value long-term operational savings, and finance increased up-front cost. This is no easy task because of federal banking regulations and the lending and underwriting process.

    As you see, there is a lot involved.

    **

    I am, again, disappointed in this building while still grateful to the people who have worked on this project and fought for improvements. But change in this arena, I believe, will be hard-earned and will take a long time. And I feel will need to start with policy changes. Design-bid-build does not produce the most efficient buildings. We need to use integrated project delivery. And while again I don’t know the details, I’m pretty sure we need to change the procurement process.

    • Submitted by Tad M on December 10, 2016 at 6:02 am

      Low Bid vs. Life Cycle Costs

      Hey everybody,

      I’ve been following this thread pretty closely, passing parts of it on to Eli and the Brattleboro Energy Committee (BEC), and discussing it with members of the Police & Fire Facilities Committee. Thanks so much, Eric, for raising these issues.

      I’m chiming in now because of Carly’s great post above. Tremendously important stuff. I want to let everyone know that about a year ago BEC submitted a proposal to the Selectboard to make decisions on major capital purchases based on a life-cycle cost analyses rather than low bids. Then chair Lester Humphreys led the effort. The Board was very receptive to this, esp. David Schoales (who’s generally way out ahead on these issues), but Peter Elwell was new at the time and they wanted to consider the implications before codifying it. I’ve heard nothing since.

      At this moment I am in the process of writing an article for local media that will do this for the West Brattleboro fire station. I’ll be projecting the 50-year heating costs at its current insulation levels: R-11 under the ground-floor slab, R-24 wall insulation, R-60 ceiling with VT building code: R-10 basement, R-20 walls, R-40 ceiling as well as what we in the trade call “best practices”: R-20, R-40, R-60 respectively. ‘Retired’ architect Steve Lloyd and I spent a couple hours pouring over the plans last week to determine wall sizes, window U-values (the inverse of R-values) and insulation levels. Gary Swindler of Efficiency Vermont will be checking my numbers and helping with the esoteric end of the energy modeling.

      This process, unfortunately, will do nothing to address shortcomings in the W. Bratt fire station. That’s locked in. My hope, rather, is that when our town elders see how much money would have been saved over 50 years by increasing insulation levels to ‘best practices’ or what we also call ‘high performance building’ standards, and compare that to the marginal increase in construction costs to achieve these standards, this life-cycle cost analysis will quickly be adopted town-wide and used to inform the other projects under development.

      I’ll be sending this to the Reformer and the Commons, but will be happy to post it here on iBratt as well.

      Note another point here. BEC gave its annual report to the Selectboard at the meeting last Tuesday. One of the things we recommended was for the town to appoint or hire a new energy coordinator to replace Paul Cameron, who worked for the town for the meager sum of $10,000 per year. Having such a person in the employ of the town would ensure that these types of issues receive their due attention. We on BEC are all volunteers, have limited time, different interests, and must pick and choose the things that we put our energy into.

      Finally, a plug for joining BEC. We’ll have a couple openings soon, and it would be great to have folks who care about these issues, and understand them, join us. Or just come to our meetings and pipe up! They are generally on the first Monday of the month, 5 PM, in the Hannah Cosman room of the municipal center (the likely next one to be Jan. 9th to avoid New Years’ revelry).

      Again, thanks to all for this discussion.

      Tad Montgomery
      Home Energy Advocates

  • Submitted by eschmitt on February 3, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    .

    .

  • Submitted by SK-B on February 4, 2017 at 6:52 am

    What could this be about?

    ibrattleboro generally looks the other way, even when standards are clearly violated. I think they prefer to err on the side of free speech.

    What could possibly have happened to prompt eschmitt to allege “non-transparent censorship?”

    • Submitted by Vidda on February 4, 2017 at 9:45 am

      And, that is what Erik Schmitt is referring to.

      “ibrattleboro generally looks the other way, even when standards are clearly violated”
      Whose “standards” are you referring to? Hopefully not yours?

      However, iBrattleboro has a policies page here: http://ibrattleboro.com/ibrattleboro-site-policies

      If it’s true that they “err on the side of free speech” that is good, not a bad thing. Under “each” comment there is a hyperlink called: “Flag as offensive’” I don’t think it is used very often, also, a good thing.

      This is an author generated, open public forum. But, to summarily remove “all” comments, is not good. It sets a precedent of a form of censorship that is deeply troubling. And, that is what Erik Schmitt is referring to.

      Whereupon, I call our readers attention to the fact that there were eight comments under the article “Bodyworkers Join Forces in 2017, of January 31.” All eight of them were summarily removed. Moreover, the link called “Add a new comment” was also removed so that no further comments were allowed. That is a highly irregular form of censorship.

      Since one of the comments was yours, I can’t believe that you failed to notice the removals.

      • Submitted by rootrunner on February 4, 2017 at 11:51 am

        tactics

        Subtle tactics of occasional preference can be practiced here such burying or shifting to the back of the line what is seen as a questionable thread (such as commentary on a poll suddenly disappearing from back pages, maybe just a mistake) or just seeming somewhat reactionary when misrepresenting the actual sequence of “most commented on” and vanishing it’s rank in activity when it seems exhausted or uncomfortable. I don’t know if this really works, case in point this thread being brought back from the dead with mysterious omissions to haunt .

        But these maneuvers by the powers to be are rarities in my experience and most likely in complete conformance to their policies and discretionary rights I am not fully privy to. Ibrattleboro is pretty, dam good about allowing a thread to take on a full life cycle of it’s own without intervention, unless the ranker back and forth becomes abusively slanderous in nature and could hardly be viewed as being conducive to productive discussions when readers will automatically find them offensive, distasteful and out of line. Especially with some of the recent, rampant hen pecks I certainly would not want to referee or volunteer to get in-between myself. After all, this is not ivent excrement.com. It must be very difficult to field and scrutinize all these comments, appropriate and not, on a daily basis, day after day, I don’t know how they do it with such outstanding success and panache.

        • Submitted by rootrunner on February 6, 2017 at 4:43 am

          Why is this thread not now in

          Why is this particular thread not now in the most read column, am i missing something about how entries are registered and how this works? This selective shifting is what I’m talking about, so come on (I’ve seen instances where ibrattleboro has brought threads back to fill the pages so you can’t have it both ways).

          In my opinion I think it would be best for ibrattleboro to offer and post an explanation why they are doing so when and if they are to take drastic measures to eliminate comments or relegate them to the back of the line misrepresenting their actual placement, perhaps there is too much going on behind the scenes it seems, but then again this may be their prerogative to keep the peace, I suppose .

          However, I enjoy everything else about this site as so many others appreciate the presentation of local news and check in in a daily basis to read up community affairs. Not so sure about how certain operating decisions are rationalized though, democracy is a messy business as they say.

  • Submitted by SK-B on February 4, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Eliminating ALL Comments

    The only other time that I am aware of the moderators eliminating all comment to a story (as well as removing the comment button) it made perfect sense. There had been an indescribably disgusting attack on an ethnic group, which had to be removed like removing a cancerous mole. The other comments to that story — many of them decrying the sicko comment — were removed, because leaving them no longer made sense.

    I think it would be challenging for the moderators to write a sort of an “on-the-media” article about censorship issues. It would be challenging because it might be difficult to discuss the issue without resurrecting previously-deleted, offensive material. But if they could find a way to broach the subject, it could be a valuable discussion

    • Submitted by Vidda on February 4, 2017 at 2:24 pm

      One man's opinion

      As I said there have been individual comments made in other articles, including my “the separation of science and belief”article.

      Also as I said, iBrattleboro already has a policy page that anyone can see in the banner menu and click on for stated policies. If the “moderators” wish to write a censorship article, as I also said, this is an author generated, open forum to all who wish to place an article.

      Your alleged “indescribably disgusting attack on an ethnic group” you say was my comments on BAJC. The views I share here are in the eyes of our readers. You have your view on but many of the readers who view my articles most certainly have different,. both favorable and unfavorable. Thank for your “one man’s opinion” about the “cancerous mole.” Since I don’t get to hear the silent readers, I’ll file your comment as a dissident.

      I write my articles and comments in draft files that I save. I know what I write and honestly, it doesn’t matter to me what you think. But I welcome what you write, tho you are prone to vicious personal as this one I am replying to.

  • Submitted by Vidda on February 4, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    "The Moderators"

    I write articles of various kinds here. I have spoken with the editors of Vermont’s main newspapers, and found them very receptive to publishing my opinions, including but not limited to, Burlington Free Press, Time-Argus, Rutland Herald, Manchester Journal, Brattleboro Reformer, Bennington Banner, VTDigger, 2VR.org, iBrattleboro, and others, from 2008 to the present. I have published opinion pieces in four other states since 2002. My most recent letter in The Reformer: http://reformer.com/stories/letter-beware-the-new-war-on-drugs,496895?)

    At first, I was apprehensive that my views would not be welcome. It turned out, the opposite was true. Most editors and moderators do not have a chip on their shoulder as I find from a few commenters here on iBrattleboro.

    iBrattleboro editors (moderators) have made me feel, with a few exceptions, that authors are responsible for their own written word. From that we gain latitude of topics and comments.

    The editors across this state are wise enough to recognize good writing when they see it, and ready to publish it. I am always in their debt for allowing me to voice my opinions and various topics I write about.

  • Submitted by Vidda on February 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    If you are

    If you are a professional writer and editor, you could of fooled me. I guess I should ask, show us readers links your works, but no, I prefer that another reader ask for that.

    That iB is a forum for all of its participants was never under contention.

  • Submitted by Vidda on February 4, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Back to Deletion

    Removing all comments from an article is relatively new. It wasn’t that long ago when comments were the responsibility of the authors. It’s as if a political change has moved into MuseArts with a bit of conservative take on things.

    As snarky as iB has been sometimes in the past, I’d take that any day over wholesale removal of all comments.

    Erik Schmitt has to be one of the most intelligent people making comments. He adds a little color with his cutting comments, but he backs up what he says and doesn’t make assertions without proof. His comments on the “Bodyworkers Join Forces” were spot on. Losing Erik on iBrattleboro is a great loss. His presence here is far more important than objections and subsequent deletions of comments.

    Moreover, when I also responded counter to the defense of “placebo’s” comment, I was spot on. I never write anything I can’t backup and justify. And, none of those comments should have been deleted either.

    If you submit an article here, where there are comments to be made, either stand your ground or reconsider using a site that doesn’t have a comment section to advertise your services, or other topics that might draw comments.

    • Submitted by SK-B on February 4, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      Deletions

      I recall that you offered what sounded like a sincere apology for your comment which was later deleted. So even by your own standards it is ridiculous to claim that: “I never write anything I can’t backup and justify.” Truth is, no one is perfect and you only make yourself look foolish by denying your own fallibility.

      As for your statement, that I am neither a writer nor an editor: This is not the first time that you have made an ass out of yourself by bragging that you are “a real writer,” and the other person is not. I am not about to publish my rĂ©sumĂ© on ibrattleboro, but if it really matters to you, we can have coffee together and I will show you my portfolio and discuss my writing career.

      I too feel disappointed that Erik has elected to withdraw from this forum. You had the courage to continue, even when you had badly embarrassed yourself. I very much value Erik’s analytical approach. (He reminds me of my son, whose incisive reasoning can demolish a faulty argument of mine, often with devastatingly clever insults 🙂

      Unlike your insults, which really seem intended to hurt a person where they are most vulnerable, I get the feeling that Erik sometimes insults someone out of pure frustration. He does at times go a bit far. At this point we can only guess about what he wrote that was censored. We do not know whether it was fair or not, but you yourself have written that you trust Chris and Lise and respect their editorial decisions.

      I had held back from continuing the placebo discussion, mostly because I have been too busy lately to attend to it. But I had hoped to engage Erik in further, online discussion at a later date. I also feel disappointed that Erik has left, and I hope that he will reconsider.

      • Submitted by Vidda on February 5, 2017 at 9:49 am

        "A dunsel, sir."

        From a psychological standpoint, you have an unusual antagonistic, extremely repetitive fixation on me. That fixation says far more about you than it does about me.

        You use these lines to describe me in ways that I am not and often unflatteringly nasty. Some readers may take note, that, while I may make unflattering comments about you, I rarely use foul invective as you do.

        I should disclose here that I entertain this endless tit-for-tat, not because you are instructive, or offer constructive criticism, you do not. I realized a long time ago that these entertaining but useless, throwaway castigatory comments you make draw readers to my articles. I like to assume some actually read my articles, but I’m okay if they jump right to your entertaining nonsense. For whatever my tenure is on this site, I actually hope you continue to do so.

        Otherwise, as I said, on my ship of public statements, you are a part that serves no useful purpose. I apologize for having say, coffee with you would be superfluous.

        (BTW, once this T4T began, with apologies to Erik, this article, now called “Deleted,” has gained several hundred new readers and an unknown number of repeats. I’m so sorry that Erik was recessed and his point of views were not fully expressed.)

        • Submitted by SK-B on February 5, 2017 at 11:11 am

          Erik sidelined?

          More than half of my latest comment was about Erik, and it was my February 4th comment which initiated the discussion about Erik’s censorship complaint.

          How weird that you admit to starting quarrels as a ploy to attract greater readership, and then complain that the discussion has been derailed. As for your having made an ass of yourself, that is your own doing.

          • Submitted by Vidda on February 5, 2017 at 1:24 pm

            LOL! I’m amazed

            Dear Readers, as many of know anybody can call me, you or anyone else an “ass.” A half-wit can call names. But I am confident that many of you know that doesn’t mean it’s true.

            K-Brooks, any way you look at it, when readers read your choice of words to me, they are without doubt nasty vitriol. I find that I generally don’t do the same. But, then again, you are a rather unpleasant fellow, aren’t you?

            LOL! I’m amazed the “moderators” have let this T4T nonsense go on so long, but as I said, this has some entertainment value, not unlike the popular “soaps.”

            The number of “Reads” are now approaching 1400, with a significant growth since Erik reposted this piece with “By eschmitt | Thu, November 03 2016; “Deleted as I no longer wish to participate on a website that practices non-transparent censorship.”

          • Submitted by SK-B on February 6, 2017 at 1:30 am

            Vidda protests

            Suddenly a gentle soul, whose delicate sensibilities have been offended 🙂

  • Submitted by Vidda on February 5, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Freedom of Speech: Once started, it should not be abridged

    I think what is really happening is that Erik generated a discussion of censorship that has taken root on this site, but I trust Lise to give some to room to it. It is, after all, a quintessential American discussion, that in fact, is not just a local community topic, but may be playing on the larger stage with the new White House and Congress occupation.

    Let’s just bear in mind, that Erik not only strongly expresses himself, but he does so with spot-on intelligence. While it’s true that some locals may complain about him (and me), the recorded of the number of total readers is far greater than the handful of complaints Lisa may have received.

    Erik wrote me to say he is uncomfortable contributing to a site where the, “content that may bring views and attention to a website that so hypocritically violates transparency and the ethics that the title of “citizen journalism” and “discussion forum” implies. This came to a head with the reflexology folks where Lise made is clear that positive comments supporting them were just fine, but any criticism of any sort, no matter how civil and polite, was not going to be tolerated and would be deleted.”

    Most readers could not know that that I have written a fair amount about the “Founder’s Intent” when the First Amendment was written. If K-Brooks is right, and I believe he is, that, “ibrattleboro is a forum for all of its participants” then what we have here is an open forum where “freedom of speech” is in play. Once started, it should not be abridged no matter what “private” complaints come forth.

    Now as owners, they also have the right to “update” this site with stated policies where, as Erik said, “criticism of any sort, no matter how civil and polite, (will) not going to be tolerated and (will) be deleted.” But it has to be that transparent when the rules of the sites are changed and posted. In that case, writers will do out and it be “intended to be nothing more than a glorified bulletin board.” The thought of that is depressing.

    • Submitted by SK-B on February 5, 2017 at 5:07 pm

      Was it content, or something else?

      This quote from echmitt is the first inkling we, the readers, have of what the issue was:

      Erik wrote me to say he is uncomfortable contributing to a site where the, “content that may bring views and attention to a website that so hypocritically violates transparency and the ethics that the title of “citizen journalism” and “discussion forum” implies. This came to a head with the reflexology folks where Lise made is clear that positive comments supporting them were just fine, but any criticism of any sort, no matter how civil and polite, was not going to be tolerated and would be deleted.”

      Erik’s claim that, “Lise made [it] clear that positive comments supporting them were just fine, but any criticism of any sort, no matter how civil and polite, was not going to be tolerated and would be deleted,” is disturbing. It is hard for me to imagine that eschmitt would grossly distort the facts, but it is equally difficult for me to believe that the owners of ibrattleboro would arbitrarily ban comments for no other reason than that they disagree with those comments. 

      Erik is no longer particiating (and I hope he does return) and even if he were, obviously he would not be permitted to restate the remarks which were banned. It is not totally clear to me whether Erik is saying that his words were civil and polite; or if he is saying that his actual words were uncivil and rude but that he understands Lise to have made it clear that civility or uncivility were not at issue; but that his comment would have been deleted regardless, because criticizing reflexology is off bounds?

      So far the moderators — Chris and Lise — have not interferred with this discussion about censorship, but they have also remained silent. Some major newpapers have an ombudsman to sort out policy and ethics questions. For small papers, the managing editor, at least in theory, can be appealed to.

      There does come a time when those making editorial decisions really do have a moral obligation to come before their readers and explain.

      I think it is time for light and fresh air on ibrattleboro. I think that the allegations that have been made are serious, and have been made by someone who has earned respect. He is charging that the rules on ibrattleboro have either been seriously violated by a moderator out of her own bias; or else that the rules have changed without the readers being notified. 

      If we cannot hear more from Erik, I hope that the owners of this site (particularly Lise, since she is the one whom Erik claims has exercised her authority for personal bias) to enter into this discussion.

      Lise: Are Erik’s allegations true that you, “made [it] clear that positive comments supporting them were just fine, but any criticism of any sort, no matter how civil and polite, was not going to be tolerated and would be deleted?”

      Could you have said something to him in haste, and now regret it? Or did you say it, and continue to stand by it? Or is what Erik wrote not accurate? 

      • Submitted by Lise on February 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

        What's Going On?

        HI SKB, and all,

        We appreciate everyone’s interest in Eschmitt’s dismay over deleted comments on a business announcement for a business he considered quackery. He and I have been in communication about this and he’s made his views very clear to me in strong terms. We are not ignoring him. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach detente with Eschmitt over whether it’s ok to accuse business owners of quackery when they post a business announcement. See separate story Why We Sometimes Delete Comments for details about why we do not want people using comments for that purpose.

        We would have addressed this publicly sooner, but as always, it took a lot of soul searching and discussion for Chris and I to work out how we felt about this ourselves. In the end, we couldn’t, in good conscience, tell EScmitt or anyone to blast away.

        As for all the deleted comments from Eschmitt above, that would be Eschmitt deleting them for his own reasons. The only comments we deleted were those on a different story relating to a site contributor’s business announcement. Any “empty” comments are the work of the comment’s author, not the moderators.

        Thanks for your patience and understanding!

        • Submitted by KAlden on February 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm

          It's been interesting to see

          It’s been interesting to see this post take on a life of it’s own even after the main person commenting is no longer a part of it. I read Eschmitt’s comments about the body works business and although his comments were harsh they were not of an opinion that he hasn’t expressed many times before. I remember an announcement about a woman who, I think, might have been appearing at an event and she claimed she could communicate with animals. Eschmitt’s comments about that were quite similar to his in this post. I guess I’m curious as to why those comments were allowed and these weren’t. Calling someone a quack or strongly disagreeing with someone is par for the course on ibrattleboro. I – along with many, many others have been on both sides of that particular situation. I do understand the difference between someone posting a theory that is vehemently disagreed with and someone posting a notice regarding their livlihood and having that deemed “quackery”. So, is that the line that you and Chris find yourself walking? That you want to encourage free speech but if the way a person makes their living ( as long as it is legal) is subjected to vitriol then that cannot be allowed?
          I’m not disagreeing with your decision just looking for a little clarification I guess about where that fine line is.
          Thanks,
          Kris Alden

          • Submitted by Lise on February 7, 2017 at 7:22 am

            the fine line

            I’m going to speak for myself here and not “the moderators,” and say that in my opinion, the place to debate, let’s say chakra therapy, is in a story about chakra therapy or alternative healing or spiritual practices, and not on the business announcement of someone offering to balance your chakras for you. Provided the business is not doing something heinous or illegal, we think people should be free to post that information without fear of attack.

            People who strongly feel that chakra therapy (or whatever) are bad and wrong are free and encouraged to write their own articles about these things where they can use all the strong rhetoric they like as long as they don’t start calling out community members by name. We think it’s possible to fully discuss and expose the flaws in a thing without getting personal about it.

            Thanks for asking and I hope this helps.

          • Submitted by KAlden on February 7, 2017 at 7:34 am

            Thanks for your response,

            Thanks for your response, Lise.

          • Submitted by Vidda on February 7, 2017 at 8:49 am

            The Gray Area

            I think many readers and commenters may not actually pay much attention to the banner labels. In the menu where we can create a “story” there is a drop down box to select a “Section” that says, “Choose a section for your story.” From the list of sections, I can see, then, that business and obituaries may not be appropriate for where we “can use all the strong rhetoric (we) like [as long as they don’t start calling out community members by name.]”

            However, in my comment that was deleted, I did in fact criticize the service offered, but at no time were my comments personal, no name was mentioned and I did no name-calling. (I think Erik’s intent was also too criticize the topic, but I no longer have access to his comments.)

            Also, comments anywhere that discuss a particularly in counterpoint, does not necessarily constitute a “fear of attack” tactic. Perhaps, our readers would, indeed, appreciate another view other than that offered in the post. That that post was business technically is not immune to a different explanation for the service offered.

            I agreed totally that direct, personal attacks, particularly if flagged as offensive, should be moderated to the satisfaction of the offended. But the topic itself does not fall into that category as it pertains to any section where a topic is posted.

            That then, is a gray area. Because if another commenter writes in support of the service, that is okay, but if one comments about the service negatively, that gets deleted.

            The designation “comment” is by nature “open-ended.” They either are positive, negative or neutral. If only neutral or positive comments are sanctioned for “any” section, including Business, then there is no point to an open-ended section called “Add a new comment.”

            Going forward knowing Lise’s understanding of the intent of the “Business” can help to moderate future comments in business.

Leave a Reply