Censorship does not befit our community
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
1  2  >
h?sti ?eldud Tauno23 Jun 2018 06:30
Ait?h. M?tlesin samuti, et s?navabadus peaks meil ikka olema.
e m rootsis23 Jun 2018 07:17
T?nud, et s?navabaduse eest seisad!
Who does the censor serve?23 Jun 2018 07:24
Kommentaar on kustutatud EWR toimetuse poolt.
This comment has been deleted by EWR
say 'No' to censorship!23 Jun 2018 09:28
If censorship doesn't benefit our community, why was this comment censored?
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Who does the censor serve? (07:24), to - Tauno (09:01)
To Tauno M?lder23 Jun 2018 08:42
It is dishonest to post an opinion piece on this website without first fully publishing the original. This seems to be the type of tactic that Marcus Kolga is critical of although he didn’t name any specific website. Estonian World Review has left a very strong impression of being against the Estonian Centre development as acknowledged by Tauno M?lder himself when he cites 70% of articles as neutral and 30% as against the new development. Many of the against articles seem to exaggerate known facts or ignore them entirely.
lugeja to to Tauno M?lder23 Jun 2018 10:09
You say that:
"Estonian World Review has left a very strong impression of being against the Estonian Centre development as acknowledged by Tauno M?lder himself when he cites 70% of articles as neutral and 30% as against the new development. "

This is incorrect. What he said was actually:

"The remaining 70% are neutral news, announcements, or pieces published by the 4Orgs."

You either didn't understand what Tauno wrote, or are pretending to not understand - pieces published by the 4Orgs have been anything but neutral.
honestly23 Jun 2018 10:40
the 70% not critical include PR releases by 4Orgs and pro Madioson opinion pieces.
to - Tauno23 Jun 2018 09:01
Why not address Marcus directly in 'Eesti Elu' where dissenting opinions are not censored.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Who does the censor serve? (07:24)
Margus Jukkum23 Jun 2018 09:17
To the person accusing Tauno M?lder of dishonesty for posting an opinion piece without fully posting the original on which it is based, please use the link in M?lder's posting which is indicated by the mauve coloured letters "opinion piece in Eesti Elu". You can then see Marcus Kolga's article in its entirety.
Fake news?23 Jun 2018 13:18
The original article at Eesti Elu, makes no suggestions about censorship, just accountability. The premis of this EWR article is thus, based on a fabrication. It is unfortunate that the author of this piece feels compelled to stoop to such vulgar manipulation.
censor23 Jun 2018 14:10
Has anybody advocating for censorship actually called it as such? They usually use words like "unity", "party line", etc.
Aivar23 Jun 2018 16:02
Tubli Tauno!
Mulle sarnaneb praegune konsolideerimine omaaegse 'k?igi maade proletaarlased
ühinege' propagandaga. M?lemad p?hinevad v?rdsusel ja vendlusel. Meelitamine ja
hirmutamine k?ivad samas taktis ning suurem osa kogukonnast kardab ?elda
mida nad tegelikult m?tlevad, et mitte oma elu keerulisemaks teha. Korduvad
loosungid, et kui 'need eestlased keda ei ole olemas' oma kiuslikku, rumalat jne 'jonni' ei j?ta siis pole meil tulevikku jne.
Estol kogukonna (rahade?) juhtijatel avaneb Toronto kultuurikoridorides v?imalus
ühendada nii estot ennast kui eestlust. Viimase hulka mahuks nii siberi kui
eesti eestlased. Loodetavasti t?mmatakse kaasa ka kümnekonna tuhande kanada 'kadunud'
ja 'oma p?ritolust mittehoolivate' eestlase hinged.
Kui aga ei toimu esto kogukonna laienemist on tegemist teadliku konsolideerimise ehk uue kitsama ringi esto eliidi enesekehtestusega.
Tuleb vaid tegelikkuses t?estada, et see pole nii ja ühendamine ei toimu mitte hirmutamise vaid teisel seisukohal olijate p?him?ttelise respekteerimisega.
Kalle Amolins23 Jun 2018 18:09
EWR's mission, as described above, would seem like a noble one, but it's hard not to notice some hypocrisy (and I really don't mean to give offence in using that word).

You (Tauno) describe EWR as both a member of the "free press" and as "valuing accountability", yet you also regularly allow lapses in basic journalistic standards.

Take the last posting related to the Eesti Maja/Eesti Keskuse tulevik as an example...

The posting of "Tulge Külla's" supposed strategy for Broadview redevelopment was posted less than 24-hours in advance of Thursday's community meeting. This may be baseless speculation on my part, but such timing seems more indicative of trying to cause a stir than actually presenting an "alternative strategy".

On top of that, this supposed strategy also comes from a completely unknown author. How are readers and community members supposed to evaluate the credibility of claims made in postings to this site when authors are frequently anonymous and sources omitted?

I am personally a long time reader of EWR and happen to think it's a valuable institution where Toronto Eestlus is concerned. I am also sure that this site's contributors are just as interested in the continued thriving and vibrancy of our community as I am...

But if you want to call for things such as an open debate and dialogue, you should begin by setting that same tone yourself. Anonymous posts, authors, sources, and comments only serve to muddy the waters and further obfuscate what should indeed be a transparent, open, and honest conversation.
Tauno M?lder23 Jun 2018 22:25
Kalle, thank you for your feedback.

I went back through all the articles published about the re-development and Madison projects. /cfc/toronto-ee...

Out of 230, I counted 6 opinion type articles that could be considered to be without specific author. Four of them are from Eesti Maja S?brad. As you probably know, Eesti Maja S?brad is a loose community based organization with fluctuating membership and juhatus, not unlike several other Estonian community based organizations. While the S?brad juhatus did not print their names under every opinion style article they submitted, it was nevertheless not hard to figure out who they were. You only had to check out their earlier articles and photos about their talgut?? around Estonian House. They are now official non-profit organization and their board members are on public record, also published in EWR.

Two remaining articles are signed as ’concerned shareholders’. This group was initially formed by several shareholders (who were known to EWR) of Eesti Maja, but who were at the end able to get support from approximately 1000 shareholders. I think it would have done our community a great disservice to reject their article submissions and viewpoints, considering their large reach.

Estonian World Review is also a volunteer based organization and although it has a formal structure and ownership, we relay on submissions from our community based contributors and Estonian language newspapers from Canada, USA, Estonia, Sweden, Germany, Australia, etc.

I do not consider the specific “Tulge Külla” article you mention as an opinion piece, it is merely an announcement from a group that is in the beginning stages of formation, somewhat similarly to early stages of S?brad. They have promised more information soon, stay tuned and check back often to การพนันฟุตบอลถูกกฎหมาย www.shantiguesthousepokhara.com.

I hope this clarifies your concerns.
Another concern24 Jun 2018 09:06
Mr. M?lder’s background and life experience give him perhaps more sensitive antennae to censorship than we who have become complacent in an increasingly socialist Canada with a PM who admires his godfather Fidel Castro and Red China, hardly “Liberal” in the true sense of the word.

When we’ve committed to an idea or path, it’s very tempting to first dismiss opposition, then try to suppress it by appealing to “unity” or “patriotism” or other positives but if these inducements don’t work, what then? Unaddressed resentments are corrosive to any community, something we can likely all agree on.

If those who wish to build a new Estonian Center on the bones of the old one had included more transparency and public consultation along the way….if the vote to sell the Broadview property had not been controversial because of various conflicts of interest and a large bloc of votes obtained by the Estonian Credit Union without much public scrutiny, voted without consultation of ECU members…if all activities presently at Broadview could be transferred to a new site…
perhaps then there’re would be less disunity?

Some people prefer less gloss and more function to taking on new dysfunctions that appear incurable on the chosen site (e.g. significantly less square footage, parking, congestion and exit from Madison Ave. that have not been convincingly addressed).

Perhaps a major donor or donors could have been found who would agree that his or her money would go further fixing flaws on the Broadview site than building from scratch on Madison. Isn’t the main anxiety of the larger Estonian community that they have not seen a fair comparison of 2 similarly funded plans – to stay or go?
a troll24 Jun 2018 10:32
Looks like Marcus Kolga has put Tauno M?lder to his great Maggnitsky List for being Putin's troll and helping Putin to undermine the Esto House project.
Glen Leis25 Jun 2018 07:25
Many of us have repeatedly asked for a plan that will allow us to compare and contrast the alternative of keeping a renovated Estonian House to the building of the new Estonian Centre. Logically, the presentation of such a plan would be the foundation of a rational debate. To date, and it has been a while, none has been provided. During this time Estonian Centre project volunteers have been slandered and maligned; however, this is a new low. Marcus Kolga has been not only an important part of the Estonian Community, he has represented all of us in his efforts to promote democracy and human rights. He is a classic example of Estonians punching above their weight class and making a significant impact on the world stage. This nonsense, this terrible slander, has convinced me to sign off from this debate; I will no longer legitimize those that stoop to these levels. I leave with one parting comment: With the passage of time a window has closed; time and energy has been squandered on criticism as opposed to action. Life has taught me that there are people that do and people that do not; Marcus Kolga, and Estonian Centre volunteers, are people that get things done and I am very proud to stand with them.
Virve Aljas25 Jun 2018 10:39
"Our community is a microcosm of the wider world and the dynamics that encompass our lives, including the press."

I agree with this statement 100%, only I think we're interpreting it differently. There are a couple of disturbing trends that are very much a part of the wider world as well as this discussion. The first are people who don't draw a line between free speech and slander. For those fond of definitions, slander is "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." No shortage of that.

The second trend involves those who mistake belief for fact. Because I mistrust ______, I will never believe what they say to be true. Because I want ______ to be true, it is.

Marcus Kolga called for respectful discourse and moderation, not censorship. In a nutshell.
lugeja25 Jun 2018 11:52
Kolga in his article uses words/phrases such as "trolls", "stoked existing discord", "slinging of mud", "innuendos, rumours and baseless accusations", "creation and dissemination of erroneous information", and "intended to sow anger and discord". This last one is really over the top - it's one thing to voice an opinion on something that has been said but to claim to know the intentions behind what someone has said seems to me a bit much.

It's hard to take Kolga seriously when he uses all these derogatory terms to label people/actions without providing so much as one example. If there have been so many cases of trolling, mud slinging, erroneous information etc. that Kolga feels the need to write an article on the subject then surely he could provide us with at least a couple of examples. In the absence of such examples (he's failed to provide even one), it's hard to view his article as anything but what he's taking an issue with - mud slinging. He's says that rifts must be healed but it seems likely that this kind of mud slinging won't help, in fact it's likely to make things worse.
to lugeja25 Jun 2018 13:34
exactly. In half of his his article, Kolga calls for harmony, unification, respectful debate, etc. All good things. But the other half is unsubstantiated "trolls", "stoked existing discord", "slinging of mud", "innuendos, rumours and baseless accusations", "creation and dissemination of erroneous information", and "intended to sow anger and discord".

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
That guilty feeling?26 Jun 2018 12:34
Lugeja and his alter ego are demonstrating what is commonly known as a guilty conscience. It’s becuase of their cyber-bullying and anonymous sniping that many of us post anonymously.
Virve Aljas25 Jun 2018 12:00
In this context, an internet troll is someone who stokes the extremes of a debate with innuendo and not much else. One of the most common characteristics of internet trolls is a preference for anonymity or false identities.

Tell me, is lugeja your given name or surname?
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Virve Aljas (10:39)
lugeja25 Jun 2018 12:20
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: lugeja (11:52)
lugeja25 Jun 2018 12:22
Dear Virve,

To expand on my earlier response:

Anonymity is a common characteristic of most people who post on this forum, in fact it's a common characteristic of most people who post on any internet forum.

This has been discussed before, people have given their arguments both for and against allowing anonymity and at this time, anonymity is allowed (in the same way it is allowed on almost all internet forums). If you don't like that then feel free to petition for change but as long these are the rules I would appreciate it you would respect my rights (and the rights of others).

I personally like the fact that most people remain anonymous here for the simple reason that the focus is on what is being said rather than who is saying it. People have a tendency to focus on who is speaking rather than what is being said, that's the unfortunate reality.

If you have any questions/comments on what I've said then that's one thing, I welcome discussion. If however my identity is more important to you then the issues at hand then I can only assume that the issues aren't very important to you.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: lugeja (11:52), lugeja (12:20)
Kalle Amolins25 Jun 2018 18:04
To lugeja.

While anonymity certainly has merits (for instance, directing attention to arguments as opposed to who's making then, as you said), I'd argue that in some contexts that's not the ideal.

Remember, this whole discussion is about the future of a community asset; an asset which by definition has community stakeholders. Part of evaluating arguments in this context therefore also involves evaluating an individual's relationship to that asset (for better or for worse).

Anonymity is a convenience afforded by this forum, not a right.
lugeja26 Jun 2018 05:39
I get what you're saying and I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here. I also think it's somewhat off topic here and I don't want to derail this discussion so I'll just ask you this - is there anything about my comment that you feel you're unable to evaluate without this context you speak of? I only ask because I thought it was pretty straightforward and can stand on it's own merit. And I'm glad you agree that anonymity does have it's merits.

Relationship in this context is a very broad term. I'm an EM share holder, is that context enough? I honestly don't even think that matters though as I welcome the opinions of anyone who cares enough to offer one.

Convenience vs a right - I think we're talking semantics now. The bottom line is that anonymity is allowed here so we all have that right (or convenience if you prefer), at least until the rules here are changed.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: lugeja (11:52), lugeja (12:20), lugeja (12:22)
Less anger please?28 Jun 2018 11:10
Kommentaar on kustutatud EWR toimetuse poolt.
This comment has been deleted by EWR
Toim. Taastatud kommentaar28 Jun 2018 19:16
Comment author: Less anger please?
Instead of constantly publishing articles and comments about how bad specific organziations and people are, Tauno, Vaado and Allan, try being positive and constructive for a change? Think of the example you are setting for your children.
To EWR30 Jun 2018 08:40
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression , and this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to see , receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights )
Thank you EWR ,for being fair, and allowing articles and comments regarding the Eesti Maja and Madison project that express concerns , provide information and seek transparency and accountability. We are grateful , every day to live in a country where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are supposed to be a way of life.
Aime Nurmse ,Kristiina Valter , Erika Jogi , Heidi Kuus
An Observer01 Jul 2018 06:59
I am a proponent of free speech. However, what is said must be truthful, and not an unsubstantiated allegation. For example, at the EH AGM one individual spoke at considerable length as to how the EH Board was misleading the community as were the Boards of the other orgs. I am truly fed up with having to sit through these sessions and listen to unsubstantiated allegations. We are few. Let's move forward.
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.

Vaata veel ...

Lisa uus sündmus