is there anyone here that does not know my sig is a JOKE?

[Saintsman]

sohcahtoa wrote: [QUOTE=minks]I vote we keep him around and poke him with sticks a wee bit longer.

I agree. There needs to be a thread called "community behaviour" or something similar where meta-issues can be discussed.

("Meta issues" being things such as "is an internet forum more of a conversation or is it more like publishing?" "who has the right to the content of the forum" "does every poster have an equal voice?, why or why not?" ...issues pertaining to the culture of the forumgarden itself. Where are we? where would we like to go with this forum? what would we like it to be?)

I don't even lurk enough to know Lady Cop or Saintsman well enough to have an opinion on either's personal character as they choose to present it on the internet I cannot participate knowledgeably in a discussion about "is Saintsman being mean to Lady Cop? is Lady Cop being unreasonable?" I haven't got a clue.

I see everyone who posts in a not pay-to-play forum as having the right to be there, as long as they obey the terms of service to the best of their ability. We are not all going to like each other.

I would prefer not to take sides in this kerfluffle that doesn't involve me. If you ban Saintsman for merely being obnoxious, you've made up my mind for me by choosing the other side whether or not I wanted to, or whether or not I agree, or even whether or not I have a dog in this fight at all.

However, the issue of "who has more of a say in any internet forum" *is* of intellectual interest to me. It is a larger issue that is lurking beneath this discussion.

If the point of the forum is to establish friendships of a sort, a "place" of chatting between acquaintances, then it will follow that one establishes one's right to belong in the group. If it is more like publishing, then everyone's point of view is more or less equal in value although not in popularity. There must be subltelties in between.

I'm not likely going to use to bozo filter on anyone. I'm glad it exists for those who want it: it serves their purpose (avoiding contact with people/posts that **** them off). Banning to me is an extreme measure, useful only when a poster is interfering with the operation of the forum (ie hacking into it) or revealing real-life info about other posters against their will. Compromising the integrity of either the software or the pseuds we use. Otherwise, bozo filter away, everyone, to suit yourself.

Please don't choose for me who my fellow posters are by banning them unless they present immediate and real danger, because the *content* of the forum is what's important! If the quality of the content is high, naturally it attracts more quality posts/more quality posters. Those who exist merely to trouble the quality, serious posters, tend to fall away quietly in a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest way. And more trolls (or just plain people with little to contribute) will happen by.

It happens often that I run across posters on the 'net who offend me, tick me off, even make me feel very angry or sick. But I'm not going to give that irriating poster a universal value of 0. It's possible that my view of them is entirely subjective. I'm willing to say that it is CERTAIN that my view is subjective. A consensus is not a universal truth, folks. I'm not necessarily right because people agree with me and I'm not necessarily wrong because they don't. Same as anyone else. The irritating poster's presence does not diminish mine. No need to leave out of irritation.

I beg all to *ignore* those who bother you: either just inwardly or with the actual bozo filter, so that others may make up their own minds vis a vis the supposedly irritating person.

Otherwise, a forum can become so polarised by disallowing potential offense that they don't even allow sad truths to be spoken aloud and it's all one big circle of self-congratulatory BS. I've seen it happen elsewhere:any dissenting voice silenced by supposed TOS violations. Be aware that if you ban people entirely, you run the risk of developing nothing but a very boring little clique of people who already think exactly the same way and who dare not speak something that could be taken as insult, simply because it is probably unpleasant to hear.

I have faith in my fellow human beings that we can all handle being somewhere that there are people whom we dislike and who dislike us, and still be content to speak in the same circles, allowing the other to have their say, even if we ourselves choose not to listen to that person.

That's just my 97 cents. Carry on.

AMEN! Welcome aboard! Per your input, I second the motion.

I applaud your insight without taking sides and evaluating the thread as you have intelligently done. I was starting to lose hope and seek another forum, but I kind of like Bill's goofy, but educated humor.

Please appease my curiosity if you would. I am guessing that you are at least 38 years old and have what most would title a white collar state of employment backed with at least a four year undergraduate degree. Am I being closed-minded and presumptuous in my guess?

[Bill Sikes]

Der Wulf wrote: Dear Head Gardner,

Would you please remove the flamer "saintsman" from the garden, the stench is becoming nauseating. In the interest of democratic form, any other votes for his removal?


Most certainly not mine.

If you want to ignore, that's fine. However, I think you may be missing something. Think about it for a bit, & see what happens.

[Bill Sikes]

Jives wrote: I'm sure that the same applies to police officers. If someone sees them going 2 miles over the speed limit, it's "How dare they!" even though they, themselves, are going 10 MPH over the limit at the time.


Like the army in Iraq - one must be seen to be squeaky-clean.

I re-open this post to add that this comment is made in isolation, referring to the Force in general as referred to above, concerning only driving.

[sohcahtoa]

Saintsman wrote:

Please appease my curiosity if you would. I am guessing that you are at least 38 years old and have what most would title a white collar state of employment backed with at least a four year undergraduate degree. Am I being closed-minded and presumptuous in my guess?


You're completely wrong.

I am however against banning on principal. If you irritate me well enough, I'll likely bozo filter you but I won't try to keep anyone else from talking to you.

[Bill Sikes]

Saintsman wrote: The debate has ended without Lady Cop EVER addressing or answering my direct and reasonable questions.


Well, I haven't answered the one about the finger, myself - some boats can only take so much rocking before they sink. Perhaps, if you're still around, you should ask *him*?



Saintsman wrote: PS. For tmbsgrl, Lady Cop and Koan, does this mean we can't do lunch anytime in the near future?


Probably... ROFL. You might offer to gallantly stand them lunch & see what happens!

[Saintsman]

and why does lady cops opinion matter so much?

1. Her opinion matters as does everyone's opinion in an open forum and should not be infringed upon with censorship when using respectful and established language or even off-colored jokes .... and

2. It matters so much because she is a moderator and has the ability to delete any thread she chooses to. With this ability and authority, she has openly stated she would and will delete any post that does not meet her standard or expectations with what she considers "foul language." The auto-check already deletes words like *****, even though it is a perfectly acceptable word in our English language, but Lady Cop further deletes posts, as a moderator, if she thinks my use of the word ***** doesn't meet her interpretation.

How can she impose her interpretation in any just way when I use the word correctly and not as slang? That is my question. For example, are you offended if I say my bitch is in heat? Lady Cop may delete that per her interpretation as a moderator (see the thread titled, "Censorshit").

Further, I may say I really enjoy the song by Tom Jones titled, "What's up ***** Cat" and not abuse any rule or code of ethics, but notice the stars in the words place. Lady Cop went further to say that where stars are not placed, she will determine if it meets her standard as a moderator and delete accordingly.

Is this okay with all the members of FG? That is how all this started. She chooses to ignore my questions and block me while advising others to block me too. How intelligent is that course of action?

[Bill Sikes]

sohcahtoa wrote: I am however against banning on principal. If you irritate me well enough, I'll likely bozo filter you but I won't try to keep anyone else from talking to you.


Well said, that triangle.

[Saintsman]

sohcahtoa wrote: You're completely wrong.

I am however against banning on principal. If you irritate me well enough, I'll likely bozo filter you but I won't try to keep anyone else from talking to you.


Thank you for further enlightening me to my biases. You sound quite intelligent and I associated that with a strong background of education. Not that education is required to reach such standing, but it definitly helps and I highly promote it. You see, I am okay with being wrong ... when I am shown the error of my ways. :-2

[minks]

I betcha Raven is just dying to see my response now ahahaha Bratty girl.

Well Saint's I hate to be in the middle of this kind of thing, and my original response may have been something like, take this up privately with LC and don't take it into the forum or you will find yourself making enemies real easy. But well I was too slow on the uptake.

Yes you have made a valid claim Saint No fault there in my opinion. And maybe in your opinion LC is being a bit evasive. Maybe in just hoping it would end. I can't dertermine that on her part.

I don't think banning you is the solution and to all you others on here don't be so quick to ban Saints.

As we all know in real life there is always going to be a conflict of opinions and interpretation and crap ass lousy spelling and we should learn to deal with it. In real life we can't just ban someone because they are of conflicting views and because we have the power here we should not use it so freely.

Saints really has not attacked anyone in a viciuos or hurtful way.

LC I would be the first to say you are doing a fabo job as Mod, and I don't imagine it comes easily. I think Rave could tell you this.

I would hate to see you go as your contribuation is awesome. And I think Saints has the potetential to post some good readings as well.

So how about we try again and maybe in private you 2 could hash out the controversial questions.

I dunno I am no expert and I won't take sides as that only gets my ass banned ahahahahahaha

[Saintsman]

Bill Sikes wrote: Like the army in Iraq - one must be seen to be squeaky-clean.

I re-open this post to add that this comment is made in isolation, referring to the Force in general as referred to above, concerning only driving.


As an American, shall I state my opinion on the Iraqi war, or have I already used up all my "annoyance allowance" for one day? Shame on you Bill for throwing that topic out there and promoting further headache! Just ignore it and we hope it will go away and all will be well.

Does President Bush have an ignore bozo button on his White House foreign policy? Just wondering cuz that would really solve a lot of havoc.

I am surprised not to hear from anastrophe yet, but I am sure he is probably at work right now. Just wait 'til he gets home, I am afraid all Hell will break loose again on this particular thread and I will be in trouble!

And, for the record, I, Saintsman, do hereby officially and with the utmost respect ask Senior Member Capt. Buzzard the following question:

Sir, was your posting of an elderly lady giving all the world "the finger" an appropriate gesture on the FG ethical stance? If not, why did you do it and should it be deleted or censored? If so, then may I make light of the abuse toward the misuse of the English language ... even if it upsets a moderator who wishes to delete it? Thank you.

Now, hopefully we can get another opinion on this to provide further insight before I am possibly removed.

Notice the # of reads and responses on this post. I must conclude the issue is one of worth or it would not be as active as it is. Are we setting a record here between my original post (Censorshit) and this one with combined hits for viewers?

Good Job to all ... except those who quit playing. Please begin playing again.

[Erinna1112]

Saintsman wrote: Okay, I grant your above interpertation, but still wonder about the controdiction in applying the "rules". Following your theory, it must be based on a superior's judgment and not an established code of conduct. Never the less, you say "some newbie" doesn't have the "right" to shoot off their mouth.
If you're going to quote me, read the post that you're quoting first, and get it right. I did NOT say that "some newbie doesn't have the right to shoot off their mouth." I said that some newbie coming in here with an attitude isn't going to get to be a moderator. I said that shooting one's mouth off does not qualify one as a moderator either. And my first response on this thread acknowledged that I haven't been around here long.

How the moderators are chosen isn't something I concern myself with; however, nobody's been here very long. The forum itself isn't that old.

And foisting your interpretation of humor on the rest of us is insulting and hypocritical. I interpreted LadyCop's signature line as the joke on our mysogynistic society that it was. You obviously didn't. You're as welcome to your views as I am to mine. But don't tell me I'm wrong if I don't agree with you.

[Saintsman]

minks wrote: I betcha Raven is just dying to see my response now ahahaha Bratty girl.

Well Saint's I hate to be in the middle of this kind of thing, and my original response may have been something like, take this up privately with LC and don't take it into the forum or you will find yourself making enemies real easy. But well I was too slow on the uptake.

Yes you have made a valid claim Saint No fault there in my opinion. And maybe in your opinion LC is being a bit evasive. Maybe in just hoping it would end. I can't dertermine that on her part.

I don't think banning you is the solution and to all you others on here don't be so quick to ban Saints.

As we all know in real life there is always going to be a conflict of opinions and interpretation and crap ass lousy spelling and we should learn to deal with it. In real life we can't just ban someone because they are of conflicting views and because we have the power here we should not use it so freely.

Saints really has not attacked anyone in a viciuos or hurtful way.

LC I would be the first to say you are doing a fabo job as Mod, and I don't imagine it comes easily. I think Rave could tell you this.

I would hate to see you go as your contribuation is awesome. And I think Saints has the potetential to post some good readings as well.

So how about we try again and maybe in private you 2 could hash out the controversial questions.

I dunno I am no expert and I won't take sides as that only gets my ass banned ahahahahahaha


Thank you for your wonderful response. I can't believe you used the words "crap ass lousy" ... :wah: LOL! You made your point quite well.

I will not send LC any private e-mails to resolve this as I too, wish for peaceful and loving ends, but thought it very essential and important to at least examine what was going on. In light of the views and responses, we have done just that. Now, I will wait to see if I can access this site tomorrow when I wake up!

Bill, did you say I shoud "stand" lunch for them and see if they accept? I will assume you meant "send" lunch for them. How does one "stand" lunch for someone in a different state or location?

[Saintsman]

And foisting your interpretation of humor on the rest of us is insulting and hypocritical.

I certainly am not "foisting" my interpretation of humor on the rest of you at all! How do I possess such an ability? Are you robots and must take input and information against your will? Accept what you consider humor and reject that which you don't. It is all up to you, not me. It is all up to each individual, certainly not me! Can I force you to think anything ... including what is humorous? I wish!

[Erinna1112]

Saintsman wrote: And foisting your interpretation of humor on the rest of us is insulting and hypocritical.

I certainly am not "foisting" my interpretation of humor on the rest of you at all! How do I possess such an ability? Are you robots and must take input and information against your will? Accept what you consider humor and reject that which you don't. It is all up to you, not me. It is all up to each individual, certainly not me! Can I force you to think anything ... including what is humorous? I wish!
A point to you. I should have said "attempting" to foist. I haven't read the "Censorshit" thread so I won't comment on those questions until I have.

On another issue brought up in this thread - mark my ballot as "NO" on the "Should Sanitsman be banned" question. People who don't want to read you can easily block your posts; I'm actually beginning to enjoy this.

[BabyRider]

OK, WTF did I miss???? Here's what I've interpreted from this thread: LC's sig line caused some sort of controversy. I've seen LC's sig line change a couple of times in the past days, and none of them has been offensive. Ever. In response to your initial post, LC, don't you DARE go anywhere!!! You are very well liked here, and I'd like to thank Saint for "allowing" us to continue our support of you!! :yh_eyebro.

Now. After having read this thread, I'm going to give a somewhat juvenile response to the question that seems to be SO bothering Saint. Here's what it is: We don't know you. We know Captain, we don't know you. Regulars are given more slack because they have established themselves, where new members have not. We know how to take certain things from regulars. When you come along and post that drivel about language and censorship, you just sound like you're whining and a sh!t stirrer. To continue to worry yourself about a comment or thread and bring it into another thread, tells me you're a tad obsessed, and just trying to get reactions from people. See, the regulars here feel like we are friends, and this is our "clubhouse" for lack of a better term. When someone comes into our house and acts like a twit, we tend to band together and clean house. Behave in our house, as you would being the guest in ANY house, till you're one of the gang. You hide your animosity behind a thin veil of politeness, and it's kinda pathetic, if you ask me.

[Raven]

The only thing I can contribute to this is simple.

Being an American isnt easy. It entails you having the right to speak on that which you believe in, while on the other hand, so does the person who speaks fervently on that which you oppose with your whole heart.

Thats why we have the american civil liberties union. To protect what we hold so dear. The freedom to speak.

[BabyRider]

Erinna1112 wrote: A point to you. I should have said "attempting" to foist. I haven't read the "Censorshit" thread so I won't comment on those questions until I have.


Don't bother, it's a buncha nonsense.

[Saintsman]

"It was just a question and you responded with an attitude like how dare I question you?! What's your problem? Was it that Lady Cop gave an opinion you didn't like or that a WOMAN gave an opinion you didn't like. A WOMAN COP ON TOP OF THAT! It sounds like Saintsman has an INFERIORITY COMPLEX and thinks low of women, anyone could see that by reading his first post under Censorshit."

My Goodness, again. Here is a classical exapmle of misinterpretation (especially one in print that has no voice tone) and an incorrect assesment made:

"It was just a question and you responded with an attitude like how dare I question you?! What's your problem?"

Did I? That is no where close to my response mood. Further, here is an example of an accussing, but ill-contrived and founded opinion:



"Was it that Lady Cop gave an opinion you didn't like or that a WOMAN gave an opinion you didn't like. A WOMAN COP ON TOP OF THAT! It sounds like Saintsman has an INFERIORITY COMPLEX and thinks low of women"

Are you kidding me? How in the world did you assess that? I am not concerned whether she is a male or a female or a fruitloop! What the heck? I assert your own biases in presuming my thought processes are showing quite clearly.

I never made any statement close to catagorizing her based on gender! I did, however, make a catagorical claim based on her judgment and profession, but never her gender. That is totally out there in no-man's land.

Am I to assume you don't like MEN based on your reply? You have been so clear in your past posts and expressions that this one really puzzles me. But, to clear any confusion, I have no bias or desire to attack the gender of Lady Cop. That is goofy! I have no inferiority complex on the issue nor think low of women. That is just a very bad assumption on your part. I am surprised. But, let the debate continue for clarity if nothing else ... and I think our new member scored the real point of the whole post when he said it is about censorship or banning those we don't agree with. Not whether you are a boy or a girl. Goofy and not like you?

[Erinna1112]

Erinna1112 wrote: On another issue brought up in this thread - mark my ballot as "NO" on the "Should Sanitsman be banned" question.
Or perhaps even "SAINTSMAN", since spelling seems to be an issue as well

[Erinna1112]

BabyRider wrote: Behave in our house, as you would being the guest in ANY house, till you're one of the gang. You hide your animosity behind a thin veil of politeness, and it's kinda pathetic, if you ask me.
You know, I wish you'd say what you really think

[Saintsman]

Erinna1112 wrote: A point to you. I should have said "attempting" to foist. I haven't read the "Censorshit" thread so I won't comment on those questions until I have.

On another issue brought up in this thread - mark my ballot as "NO" on the "Should Sanitsman be banned" question. People who don't want to read you can easily block your posts; I'm actually beginning to enjoy this.


Thank you for the "NO"! Not because I am afraid of getting the boot, but because I believe it shows an intelligent process of rational thought.

[Erinna1112]

Raven wrote:

Thats why we have the american civil liberties union. To protect what we hold so dear. The freedom to speak.
Ooooookay...this is coming from someone with a british flag in their author section? Are you an American and just like the British flag, or maybe an ex-pat?

I rather think it's the Constitution, not the ACLU, that grants us the right to free speech. However, the First Amendment doesn't apply here. The Bill of Rights restricts Congress from making laws that inhibit free speech. Doesn't say anything about a privately moderated Internet chatroom. There are rules here, including things you can't say, and it's perfectly legal.

Finally, a guarantee of free speech guarantees neither a forum nor a listener. Just because you're allowed to spout what you think doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.

[Erinna1112]

Saintsman wrote: Thank you for the "NO"! Not because I am afraid of getting the boot, but because I believe it shows an intelligent process of rational thought.
Thank you. I do my best.

[Saintsman]

"You hide your animosity behind a thin veil of politeness"

Actually I am not hiding anything as this is the way I speak and act in real life, at work and most everywhere else. Further, I am not hiding as I have posted two fine pictures of the Saintsman in the member's gallery photo area. One as the "Batman" and another as the fine Scotsman I am visiting my beloved Scotland ... and may I say, damn good looking in the garb as well, just my opinion there!

[Saintsman]

"There are rules here, including things you can't say, and it's perfectly legal."

Agreed, but the question posed is not of a legal base, but an ethical one.

"Finally, a guarantee of free speech guarantees neither a forum nor a listener. Just because you're allowed to spout what you think doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you."

Yes, I absolutely agree with the statement immediately above this one. Could not have said it better myself. But, what if someone wanted to listen to me, but it was deleted or censored? I am not asking legal internet questions here (which there really are none that stand up in the long run) but a question of ethics, espistemology and philosophy ... maybe even spirituality too!

[BabyRider]

Saintsman wrote: Actually I am not hiding anything as this is the way I speak and act in real life, at work and most everywhere else.
Hm. Brave.



For the record, I don't think Saintsman should be banned even though I don't particularly care for his "sense of humor". Or his obsessivness. Reminds me of a terrier who's got hold of a bone.

HOWEVER. If it comes down to a choice between LC and Saint, gimme LC 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. Clear 'nuff?

[Saintsman]

What's the matter Saintsman, doesn't my opinion count? Aren't you going to try to defend yourself Mr. Superiority? :wah:[/QUOTE]

I already did. It is on page 7. Be that as it may and you missed it, here it is again:

"It was just a question and you responded with an attitude like how dare I question you?! What's your problem? Was it that Lady Cop gave an opinion you didn't like or that a WOMAN gave an opinion you didn't like. A WOMAN COP ON TOP OF THAT! It sounds like Saintsman has an INFERIORITY COMPLEX and thinks low of women, anyone could see that by reading his first post under Censorshit."

My Goodness, again. Here is a classical exapmle of misinterpretation (especially one in print that has no voice tone) and an incorrect assesment made:

"It was just a question and you responded with an attitude like how dare I question you?! What's your problem?"

Did I? That is no where close to my response mood. Further, here is an example of an accussing, but ill-contrived and founded opinion:



"Was it that Lady Cop gave an opinion you didn't like or that a WOMAN gave an opinion you didn't like. A WOMAN COP ON TOP OF THAT! It sounds like Saintsman has an INFERIORITY COMPLEX and thinks low of women"

Are you kidding me? How in the world did you assess that? I am not concerned whether she is a male or a female or a fruitloop! What the heck? I assert your own biases in presuming my thought processes are showing quite clearly.

I never made any statement close to catagorizing her based on gender! I did, however, make a catagorical claim based on her judgment and profession, but never her gender. That is totally out there in no-man's land.

Am I to assume you don't like MEN based on your reply? You have been so clear in your past posts and expressions that this one really puzzles me. But, to clear any confusion, I have no bias or desire to attack the gender of Lady Cop. That is goofy! I have no inferiority complex on the issue nor think low of women. That is just a very bad assumption on your part. I am surprised. But, let the debate continue for clarity if nothing else ... and I think our new member scored the real point of the whole post when he said it is about censorship or banning those we don't agree with. Not whether you are a boy or a girl. Goofy and not like you?

[minks]

ok you all are being rather fractious (is that a word F it I am making it a word) Maybe we need a rant board so we can go in there and not be judged and be allowed to just vent. It can't be an attack board where anyone slanders another and people can't ban one and another and you can't hit below the belt but you can voice an opinion and genuinely start an argument. What say you all???

PS Raven is an EXPAT.

[BabyRider]

Saintsman wrote:

Yes, I absolutely agree with the statement immediately above this one. Could not have said it better myself. But, what if someone wanted to listen to me, but it was deleted or censored? I am not asking legal internet questions here (which there really are none that stand up in the long run) but a question of ethics, espistemology and philosophy ... maybe even spirituality too!
Let's see here...the post is still there, the poster is still here.....



GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!!!!! :-5

[Saintsman]

"To continue to worry yourself about a comment or thread and bring it into another thread, tells me you're a tad obsessed, and just trying to get reactions from people. "

For the record, let it be known that Lady Cop initiated this thread and I did not "bring it into another" at all. Wrong assumption or evaluation on your part, which has been the core of my entire discourse here. Hello?

[Saintsman]

Maybe we need a rant board so we can go in there and not be judged and be allowed to just vent. It can't be an attack board where anyone slanders another and people can't ban one and another and you can't hit below the belt but you can voice an opinion and genuinely start an argument. What say you all???

If this happens, do you see what came of this open forum and non-banning or deleting process ... you were able to advance the structure and possiblities of FG and that is a good thing! I am proud to be part of such a process and solution should it occur.

Thank you for your response.

[Raven]

Erinna1112 wrote: Ooooookay...this is coming from someone with a british flag in their author section? Are you an American and just like the British flag, or maybe an ex-pat?

I rather think it's the Constitution, not the ACLU, that grants us the right to free speech. However, the First Amendment doesn't apply here. The Bill of Rights restricts Congress from making laws that inhibit free speech. Doesn't say anything about a privately moderated Internet chatroom. There are rules here, including things you can't say, and it's perfectly legal.

Finally, a guarantee of free speech guarantees neither a forum nor a listener. Just because you're allowed to spout what you think doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
LOL! I'm an american living in britain. I didnt say the aclu gave us the right of free speech. It just goes to extremes to protect it. For instance, it takes GREAT pains to protect the rights of those who burn flags (which I loathe, btw)

And just for clarification......I didnt say I aggreed with this person. I dont. I recognise BS when I see it. A little more egocentric than I prefer. After all, as far as I can tell by their posting, all they want to do is slag off LC for doing what mods do. I dont particularly enjoy **** stirrers myself, but being new, I kept my opinion tethered. LOL!! Now look what you made me do! :yh_bigsmi

[BabyRider]

Saintsman wrote: For the record, let it be known that Lady Cop initiated this thread and I did not "bring it into another" at all. Wrong assumption or evaluation on your part, which has been the core of my entire discourse here. Hello?
Uh, yeah. I know who started the thread...Her question is whether or not she should stay (which really ticks me off), and she has received resounding support. You seem to be obsessed with the picture posted by Captain Buzzard and I think that's kind of infantile. Did you catch the gist of my reply where I explained all that? Read c a r e f u l l y...

[minks]

Saintsman wrote: Maybe we need a rant board so we can go in there and not be judged and be allowed to just vent. It can't be an attack board where anyone slanders another and people can't ban one and another and you can't hit below the belt but you can voice an opinion and genuinely start an argument. What say you all???

If this happens, do you see what came of this open forum and non-banning or deleting process ... you were able to advance the structure and possiblities of FG and that is a good thing! I am proud to be part of such a process and solution should it occur.

Thank you for your response.


We Lost LC in all this so perhaps she is finished with it and maybe so should all the rest of us be and let LC and Saint manage it themselves. As I have seen in the past it only creates issues among others when we allow our tempers to get all fired up like this and I know FG is above that.

[capt_buzzard]

To Lady Cop,

We watch over our own.



;)

[Saintsman]

Well, it has been quite enjoyable even though LC did not wish to meet the challenge. I really must go.

I will end this day by saying I am highly impressed and supportive of the almost 1,000 hits this thread alone received as well as my original thread on this issue. I think I have heard it all, but I am sure there will be more to come.

What is the record for most views on one thread in less than a half day? I am very happy to have spawned such dialouge and inspired so many to consider all sides in hopes that they will be inspired to not only participate in FG, but reach better understandings through it as is my very intent on joining.

Cheers and Peace to All!

[BabyRider]

Saintsman wrote:

What is the record for most views on one thread in less than a half day? I am very happy to have spawned such dialouge and inspired so many to consider all sides in hopes that they will be inspired to not only participate in FG, but reach better understandings through it as is my very intent on joining.



:)
Hey. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :yh_eyerol



Where does a person such as yourself buy hats big enough to fit?

[Saintsman]

capt_buzzard wrote: To Lady Cop,

We watch over our own.



;)


Hello Capt. and finally your response.

The only point I will make here is that you are the most senior psoting member and in support of this FG, notice that in only several hours, the number of views on this thread alone is almost equal to your entire postings since you began!

I believe the purpose of FG is greatly served in that alone. I won't ask for your opinion as I respect your decision to not get involved too deeply in this thread.

Cheers!

[minks]

BabyRider wrote: Hey. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :yh_eyerol



Where does a person such as yourself buy hats big enough to fit?


Claws in Play time is over Saint's left.

[Saintsman]

BabyRider wrote: Hey. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :yh_eyerol



Where does a person such as yourself buy hats big enough to fit?


Oh, and we are fellow Michiganders!

[BabyRider]

Saintsman wrote: Oh, and we are fellow Michiganders!
Most likely the one and ONLY thing we have in common.

[Erinna1112]

Saintsman wrote: "There are rules here, including things you can't say, and it's perfectly legal."

Agreed, but the question posed is not of a legal base, but an ethical one.

"Finally, a guarantee of free speech guarantees neither a forum nor a listener. Just because you're allowed to spout what you think doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you."

Yes, I absolutely agree with the statement immediately above this one. Could not have said it better myself. But, what if someone wanted to listen to me, but it was deleted or censored? I am not asking legal internet questions here (which there really are none that stand up in the long run) but a question of ethics, espistemology and philosophy ... maybe even spirituality too!
Ok...a question. Are you an Objectivist?

The quotes you posted were responding to the "ACLU" post, not to yours. Not saying you can't comment on them, just that it wasn't anything you said that prompted it.

If you had something to say, and someone to listen, you should both have the freedom to do so. I don't, however, think that it is mandated that this be the forum in which that happens. The rules here should not be bent to accommodate every user - it simply isn't possible. The originators set the standards, they're enforced. Anyone who can't operate within them (and this is a generalization, not applied to you) should find a different venue.

[anastrophe]

Erinna1112 wrote: I rather think it's the Constitution, not the ACLU, that grants us the right to free speech.
no, no, NO!!!!! sorry, this is one of those turns of phrase that gets my hackles up.



The Constitution emphatically does NOT grant us the right to Free Speech. The Constitution CODIFIES our INATE right to Free Speech. The constitution ENUMERATES our existing rights, and GRANTS certain limited *powers* to the government.



i know, i know. i should calm down. this is just one of my bugaboos. it's a very important distinction. the government doesn't 'give us' rights. our rights are inherent.





However, the First Amendment doesn't apply here. The Bill of Rights restricts Congress from making laws that inhibit free speech. Doesn't say anything about a privately moderated Internet chatroom. There are rules here, including things you can't say, and it's perfectly legal.
yes, yes, YES! this is the other half of the argument that is most often overlooked. we support free speech here at ForumGarden. However, since visitors here are guests, and this isn't a city council meeting, the Rules of Order don't apply, and we retain the *power* to govern our little corner of cyberspace however we choose. If we trample free speech too much, visitors will vote with their, er, feet (keyboards?) and just stop coming here. freedom and power work together.





Finally, a guarantee of free speech guarantees neither a forum nor a listener. Just because you're allowed to spout what you think doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
well said!



man, this coffee's strong. :yh_coffee

[Raven]

minks wrote: Claws in Play time is over Saint's left.


wish in one hand.......and poop in the other, and see which comes up fuller! :yh_rotfl

[minks]

anastrophe wrote: no, no, NO!!!!! sorry, this is one of those turns of phrase that gets my hackles up.



The Constitution emphatically does NOT grant us the right to Free Speech. The Constitution CODIFIES our INATE right to Free Speech. The constitution ENUMERATES our existing rights, and GRANTS certain limited *powers* to the government.



i know, i know. i should calm down. this is just one of my bugaboos. it's a very important distinction. the government doesn't 'give us' rights. our rights are inherent.





yes, yes, YES! this is the other half of the argument that is most often overlooked. we support free speech here at ForumGarden. However, since visitors here are guests, and this isn't a city council meeting, the Rules of Order don't apply, and we retain the *power* to govern our little corner of cyberspace however we choose. If we trample free speech too much, visitors will vote with their, er, feet (keyboards?) and just stop coming here. freedom and power work together.





well said!



man, this coffee's strong. :yh_coffee


*hands A a valium* now no more java for you mister

[Erinna1112]

anastrophe wrote: no, no, NO!!!!! sorry, this is one of those turns of phrase that gets my hackles up.



The Constitution emphatically does NOT grant us the right to Free Speech. The Constitution CODIFIES our INATE right to Free Speech. The constitution ENUMERATES our existing rights, and GRANTS certain limited *powers* to the government.
You are correct, and thank you for the clarification.

When read in its entirety, the First Amendment does not grant any rights. It restricts Congress from passing laws that would inhibit the right that was already there.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Yup. What you said.

Wanna share some of that coffee? I always say, if it doesn't make the spoon stand up and bark, it ain't joe

[capt_buzzard]

Saintsman wrote: Hello Capt. and finally your response.



The only point I will make here is that you are the most senior psoting member and in support of this FG, notice that in only several hours, the number of views on this thread alone is almost equal to your entire postings since you began!



I believe the purpose of FG is greatly served in that alone. I won't ask for your opinion as I respect your decision to not get involved too deeply in this thread.



Cheers! :)We have have saying here. If you lay down with a dog,you rise up with fleas