By John S. Frum, Publisher | September 3, 2018
Mr. Thomas McDougal has objected strongly to one of the two alternative explanations offered in Mr. Plissken’s recent article Goffstown Shows the Way. The two alternatives given were “There may have been a technical problem at that point or it might be that Mr. Bailey’s remarks have been censored.”
Mr. McDougal’s comment:
Regarding the suggestion that Mr. Bailey’s comment was censored, it was not. There was an issue with the video recording on the night in question. Specifically, the camera was off when the Macbook used to run the recording and streaming program was turned on. This resulted in the computer having to be rebooted so it would recognize the camera. Regrettably that resulted in very interesting comments being lost. We could have asked for more time to figure out the issue but hindsight is 20/20.
I find the suggestion that I, or any of the volunteers that run the recording equipment, would censor anyone regardless of their position on any topic offensive and insulting. If there are any questions about how the equipment is run or what is recorded feel free to ask. I can be reached at [personal information omitted].
The philosopher Wittgenstein once asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” The friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth.” Wittgenstein responded, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”
The point being that it looks the same either way – Earth round the Sun or Sun round the Earth. Your belief colors the explanation.
In our own defense, our correspondent did not say which was the correct construction. He did give “technical problem” pride of place in his description. And the Milton town government has censored Mr. Bailey before.
We have asked Mr. Bailey what he thinks. Mr. Bailey believes that neither Mr. McDougal nor his volunteers would ever take a hand in anything of that sort. He pointed out that it was Mr. McDougal who spoke so strongly in favor of increased video coverage, advice that the Board of Selectmen ignored.
Mr. Bailey is right. We regret that our article allowed for any other interpretation and that it offended Mr. McDougal. Mr. McDougal and his volunteers are people of worth, performing a valuable service, and who would not participate in censorship. We have revised the article to exclude that possibility.
We hope that this explanation and apology satisfies Mr. McDougal and his volunteers.