I, of all people, know the perils of online commenting, you either have them on or off (I choose off because it became impossible to manage the personal attacks in the pre-Facebook ID authentication era). But these weren't anonymous libelous comments, they were under a verifiable name, were measured and reasonable. The problem was that they challenged, not parroted, the party line.

The PLP's Facebook page has very few comments in general, which I attribute to the fact that they are not seen as a place which is interested in genuine discussion. The OBA's page is extremely active - sometimes going way off track with heavy anti-OBA commenters destroying the signal to noise ratio - including PLP MPs at times.

I think this is indicative of the fact that the PLP is seen as closed and intolerant of other views and opinions, and as in my deleted comments cases even facts, whereas the OBA is seen as a more open. People just don't bother to comment at the PLP page because it's so shamelessly propagandistic.

This is an extension of the general approach by the PLP where their statements are not designed to illuminate but to obfuscate and indoctrinate. If they believed what they wrote they would be willing to defend it rather than delete any dissent.

The PLP have anonymous people hiding behind an online curtain posting childish statements attacking Bob Richards, but when a factual and civil reply is posted under a real name, asking for additional information or challenging their 'facts' they delete it rather than engage honestly and openly.

The first comment was in reply to their trumpeting of 53 company incorporations. I simply asked if they knew what the 10 year average was.

That one line innocuous comment was deleted, perhaps because the 10 year average of insurance company incorporations is 70, meaning that 2011 was still well below average and up 50% over the worst year ever.

The second comment was in reply to their statement that Bob Richards "doesn't believe that there is a global economic crisis raging" where I pointed out that (to paraphrase: "in the mid 2000s Bob actually warned that a US recession was coming and that Government should get its fiscal house in order in advance. They didn't listen then and they still aren't listening.")

This is the fundamental problem with the PLP and any hope we have to turning Bermuda around - they cannot handle dissent, or even fact based questions. The PLP aren't interested in presenting an accurate picture of anything, so the public can't make informed judgments on how to proceed.

Their propaganda can't stand up to any sort of challenge, it needs to stand alone or it falls apart quickly, unable to withstand even the most rudimentary fact based scrutiny.

That's why they only link through to articles or comments on other websites when they are positive, but will not include a link or full quote to comments that they want to misrepresent.

Bermudians deserve better.

Just saying.

With the previous Auditor it would have been much more concise. Call him a racist.

Unfortunately that won't work with Ms. Matthews.

This also by the way answers the question in today's Gazette article entitled "Why won't whites vote for the PLP".

Just asking.

"The estimated cost of the works, including provisional items, is likely to be near US$35,595,195 with the worst case cost of US$36,140,026."

$35,595,195? Talk about false precision. Why not $36M? Or a range of $30M - $45M to give yourself some room to beat. It is a highly uncertain pollution cleanup after all.

Not to mention that it being brought to you by the Government that delivered Berkeley at 70% over budget, TCD at triple budget* and the cruise ship terminal at about 50% over budget - all relatively standard capital projects.

*Updated to correct 300% overrun from 200%.