This Is our Village

Thursday, March 17, 2011


During the course of several adminstrations, censorship has been
applied due to perhaps "sensitive, inflamatory" material etc..
I believe the time has come to establish a "Criteria" once & for all
to be adhered to, regardless of whom happens to be in power....
"Profanity & Character Assignations" should in my opinion, be the
exclusions...One can effectively state their position without resorting to either of the above. Comments welcome!


  1. Oh dear, The Century Village whipping boy, ‘The UCO Reporter’ gets a beating again – even before the new staff produce their first issue. Considering the material supplied our predecessors did a reasonable job so maybe your keyboard would have been better employed contributing instead of criticizing. If, just a small percentage of ‘The Reporter’s’ verbal critics came in to help we would have the staff to produce, what is potentially, an excellent newspaper without the necessity of a few dedicated volunteers putting in many many long hours.
    Since David Israel took office the newspaper has been independent of the UCO Administration and any ‘newsworthy copy’, good or bad is considered.
    The ‘alleged censorship’, is, I’m afraid, nothing more than a figment of CV imagination prorogated, no doubt, by those critics who are incapable of constructing a sentence. Maybe too, they should remember it is ‘The UCO Reporter’ not ‘The EGO Reporter’
    Now when can we expect your volunteer application?

  2. Hi all,
    Thanks Sue for saying so well what I would have said crudely.

    I will simply add, that there are a small number of "muck rakers" who think their submissions, often delivered with threats, are so very informative.

    Some of these submissions are simply defamatory tripe; is that the sort of Newspaper that you want?

    Know ye all well, that the very people that censored the UCO Reporter for years, are at this very moment building there campaign to return to the offices of UCO and the UCO Reporter and thus return to their draconian filtering.

    If what you want is an endless flow of Fluff, Pap, Drivel and Libel; vote them back in.

    Dave Israel

  3. Heaven forbid, Dave that people would be foolish enough to vote back a repressive group that has cost the owners hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees for lost causes and not checking our insurance payments when we were scalped by the past insurance group. I thank you and UCO's VPs and all volunteers for a wonderful job over the past year.

  4. Unfortunately, the posted
    individuals have chosen to
    mis-interpret my post...
    their perception, not mine.
    Side to the 1st POSTEE....
    Aparently your chosen profession as I was led to
    believe, that of an Investigative Report, on the
    other side of the pond, has
    failed you on this side..
    For had you taken the time,
    you would have discovered
    that during the past 2 yrs.
    my services were offered..
    One column was printed, some
    what modified,was available
    recently, somewhat limited
    to work from home...In addition, I have attended all EDITORIAL MEETINGS, with
    exception of Decembers, when
    my late husband, was in his
    last stages of pancreatic
    cancer...WHERE WAS YOUR
    Side to Grace:
    Your post here has NOTHING
    to do with this issue...
    You have valid points, with
    which I concure..but it does
    belong elsewhere.
    David...I will communicate
    privately w/you.

  5. How about realizing also there is limited space for submissions? That's not censorship-can't print every letter-so would think those of broadest interest expressed in an acceptable non inflammatory manner would be first choice for publication -

  6. Hi Bettie,
    I think you will find I’m an investigative reporter, not a clairvoyant so unfortunately I have absolutely no idea who you are since you sign yourself on the blog, merely, as BettieL. In a place this size even investigative journalists need a little more to go on!
    With regards to your other points, don’t you think it would have been kinder to have allowed us the opportunity to produce at least one issue before being subjected to your editorial comments which, I’m sure you will agree, are premature even with a crystal ball.
    Your attendance at Editorial Meetings is exemplary and you are correct that mine have been sorely lacking, but perhaps you have forgotten that at the last one, it was recorded that I had been invited to Co-Edit on a temporary basis - I didn’t actually apply for the job.
    Maybe too, if you had done a little homework of your own you may have also found that my investigative abilities have not been confined, as you so eloquently put it, to ‘the other side of the pond’. I have, as a matter of fact, been reasonably successful in the U.S and active in the village for several years.
    However, I’m delighted that the former editor of ‘The UCO Reporter’ saw fit to publish your column, once , even with the modification. Alas, having not been privy to the former editors volunteer application file, I was unaware that you have been offering your services for the past two years.
    I do hope you will come and join us at ‘The UCO Reporter” where you will be made welcome.
    Now when can ‘WE’ expect to get your volunteer application?

  7. When you criticize Sue Cohen's investigative abilities, you forget that it was her investigation that uncovered the problems involving 1st Priority and Plastridge Insurance Agency, which led to David replacing the Insurance Chair and sending the policies out to bid. This in tern, saved you close to one-half of the insurance bill you paid in the past. She also alerted the Village about some of the on-going problems we are now facing. She is one of the most intelligent and talented people I have ever met.. When you get on your knees tonight GIVE THANKS for Sue Cohen who helps keep us safe and "unscrewed".

  8. I read the original post several times and saw nothing that I construed as an attack, so I don't know why people are perceiving it as such. There were no names mentioned or alluded to.

    Having said that, I would think there is some merit in having an unambiguous criteria to refer to in case of questions AND for people to be put on "notice" that they need to adhere to these criteria for submissions.

    In addition, although it probably shouldn't have to be stated, articles should be required to be factual, not imagined or made up with mis-leading facts.

    Or did I miss something here???

  9. Bill you appear to have missed a whole lot so in the name of sanity – ours, will you and anyone else similarly inclined please let us produce our first issue. Until then how can you, or anyone else, possibly ‘know’ what the new UCO Reporter criteria is ?
    Incidentally, Bill in the legal world of newspapers you don’t actually have to name someone for it to be libelous if the malice is clearly implied and couldn’t be attributed to anyone else.
    Would all members of the ‘Good Idea’s and Hindsight Committee’, old or recently recruited please remember that idea’s need people to implement them not write about them so if any of you out there ‘genuinely’ want to see change, join us at The UCO Reporter and make it happen.
    Once the next edition appears you can fire away to your hearts content but at least, maybe, then you will have something constructive to go on.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. TO: co editors:
    In your capable hands, I
    have no doubt the Reporter
    will exceed all expectations, WITHOUT my
    assistance in the foreseeable future.
    Bettie Lee Bleckman


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.