2000+ wrote: Mike, Of course it's naive to say there are no conspirancies....No one beleaves that... the key word her is "everything."

2000+ wrote: What is there to elaborate about? Those particular meetings are held in council's chamber where camera's are installed with a direct feed to TVM. It has more to do with logistics than any plot to deny the public of coverage. Why don't you contact TVM and ask them to cover X. and report back what they say.

“What is there to elaborate about?” When YOU said: “There are many a board or committee that are covered by TVM.”, I thought that you actually MEANT “many” as opposed to “one or two”! I simply mentioned the ones that I was aware of, and asked you to elaborate. I guess I should have been more specific and asked you to LIST the others included in your “many”, and perhaps asked if there was a particular time or day when they were aired. And yes, I am aware of the direct feed from council chambers. Did you know that TVM has the capability of recording meetings that occur in other locations for delayed broadcast?

2000+ wrote: As to "We. " Very few people read the blogs "maybe hundreds" compaired to the numbers who read the newspapers or watch TVM.

Oh, THAT “we”! I see. I apologize for being confused. Somehow, when YOU Stated: “I'm more interested in your comment; ‘It's all we could do to get the council to allow the council meeting to be televised.’ ”, immediately followed by the question: “Who was we?”, I got the impression that is actually what you were asking! I should have known that you wanted my opinion regarding the readership of blogs compared to the readership of newspapers and the viewers of TV. (Actually, I am part of a conspiracy to duck such questions, but YOU caught us!)

2000+ wrote: As to your letter to the editor.....I don't know any newspaper editor interested in giving anyone the "right of refusal" when it comes to it's publication of an opinion. Your expected to make your points in a most direct fashion and utilize your best word economy. Don't expect a reply to this type of situation. The editorial editor has much more to do than banter back and forth about opinion. You get that opportunity in a blog not in a newspaper who's paying for the newsprint...etc. etc.

Thank you for your informative tips on the internal workings of newspapers. I am sure that none of the many letters to the editor that YOU have written have ever been edited, but for some of us who are less talented, letters to the editor have been edited beyond recognition. I, myself, would rather my letters NOT be published, than have them published in a form that does not convey the intended meaning. (That’s just a little quirk of mine…silly me!) Regardless, YOU asked “Why don't you write a letter to the editor of the Journal.…”. I answered that I had, and that I had done so several times, that only one had been published, and offered my opinion on why more had not been published.

In summary, you originally made a few points and asked a few questions. I addressed every point that you made and answered every question that you asked. Now, YOU reply and seem to imply that I should have answered the questions that you did NOT ask!

This begs the question: “Do you really want answers?”

Or, are you merely trying to embarrass or discredit someone with whom YOU disagree?

Either way, bring it on!