4 ms·

This is a pretty poor characterization of the context of the comment. Accusations are flying around here including calling them liars and intentionally hiding

This is a pretty poor characterization of the context of the comment. Accusations are flying around here including calling them liars and intentionally hiding information. This is a far cry from "merely asking". Particularly since the other party isn't present in the forum, providing the avenue available to us to actually do the asking seemed reasonable to me. Unless the point is to complain uselessly into the void because of the need for two minutes of hate against political enemies. Then I'll bow out...

filmgirlcw 4y ago
> This is a pretty poor characterization of the context of the comment. I think it’s a completely fair characterization of the comment. You said: >> Have you even tried to get the records? Or are you just complaining that they weren't provided in the announcement for your convenience? The only fair way to read that comment is that if you haven’t gone through a FOIA process (on a holiday weekend), you can’t comment or complain about the lack of transparency in a decision. It’s actually very common that press releases like this are offered up with appendixes that show the decision making process and examples. That didn’t happen here. It’s worth asking why and it’s worth criticizing the ruling party for not offering that information. That’s not a political statement. > Accusations are flying around here including calling them liars and intentionally hiding information. I didn’t make any of those accusations. I said >> Ask the governor of Florida. He's the one who put out the press release but refuses to offer any evidence for why books were banned. Because thus far, he is the one who has put out the informantion and has refused to provide evidence when asked (and he has been asked, as has the Department of Education). Not responding is a refusal (or worse, implying that details might not be public until the publishers have appealed). It allows people on both sides to invent reasons as to why books were banned, which doesn’t help anything. If you can’t share the details about specific books not being accepted (and I think that is a cop-out excuse), you shouldn’t issue a press release saying it is for X reason with absolutely zero evidence or context. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement or opinion. > Unless the point is to complain uselessly into the void because of the need for two minutes of hate against political enemies. Then I'll bow out... You seem to see this as an issue about political sides; it isn’t. I would have the exact same response if a Democratic governor issued an order without proof/evidence of why a decision was made, especially if it were blatantly about pandering to the base.

filmgirlcw 4y ago

> This is a pretty poor characterization of the context of the comment. I think it’s a completely fair characterization of the comment. You said: >> Have you even tried to get the records? Or are you just complaining that they weren't provided in the announcement for your convenience? The only fair way to read that comment is that if you haven’t gone through a FOIA process (on a holiday weekend), you can’t comment or complain about the lack of transparency in a decision. It’s actually very common that press releases like this are offered up with appendixes that show the decision making process and examples. That didn’t happen here. It’s worth asking why and it’s worth criticizing the ruling party for not offering that information. That’s not a political statement. > Accusations are flying around here including calling them liars and intentionally hiding information. I didn’t make any of those accusations. I said >> Ask the governor of Florida. He's the one who put out the press release but refuses to offer any evidence for why books were banned. Because thus far, he is the one who has put out the informantion and has refused to provide evidence when asked (and he has been asked, as has the Department of Education). Not responding is a refusal (or worse, implying that details might not be public until the publishers have appealed). It allows people on both sides to invent reasons as to why books were banned, which doesn’t help anything. If you can’t share the details about specific books not being accepted (and I think that is a cop-out excuse), you shouldn’t issue a press release saying it is for X reason with absolutely zero evidence or context. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement or opinion. > Unless the point is to complain uselessly into the void because of the need for two minutes of hate against political enemies. Then I'll bow out... You seem to see this as an issue about political sides; it isn’t. I would have the exact same response if a Democratic governor issued an order without proof/evidence of why a decision was made, especially if it were blatantly about pandering to the base.