Why was the post moved?
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Is this intended as an inflamitory comment? Are you trying to insult me? If so, you've failed miserably.
It was what is commonly known as a rhetorical question. Meaning, i already know the answer, but i have trouble believing it because of the odd way you're acting.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
I'm asking a legitimate question. So, unless you're the "sitemaster" you need not respond.
Let's see here... Instead of mailing the webmaster, you posted this question in a public forum. Thrice. Somehow, i have trouble believing you are actually sincere. It seems much more likely that you're attempting to stir up trouble... :suss:
Censorship IS a public issue, and SHOULD BE discussed publicly. And there was no "trouble" before the censorship. We are entitled to ask questions.
-
I'm not sure if it was ever explicit or not, but those are generally rules whenever you're in polite company. They're topics where all participants in discussion must either be in agreement, or willing to be civil in their responses... and we fulfill neither condition. ;)
-
I'd like to second Ahmed's question. This is censorship! We would like an explanation from whoever censored this post. Why do you feel you have to censor a post that claims (with justification): 1. The Democrats and Republicans have collaborated to export US jobs to low-wage countries. 2. Despite Democrats' "concern" about working Americans, their presidential candidates haven't proposed withdrawing from NAFTA. 3. Ralph Nader is the only candidate to advocate withdrawing from NAFTA, implementing a single-payer universal health care system, and cutting the huge military budget. 4. The Democrats' and Republicans' funding by, and collaboration with, big corporations is fascist by definition. These are statements of fact! Did someone ask you to censor this post? If so, who? You are violating your own rules!
Alan Balkany wrote:
This is censorship! ... censor a post ... ... to censor this post?
No, it's not; your post is here[^]. And besides: if the editors of newspapers and books can choose what to publish why do the administrators of any generic site can't choose what stays in the site?
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Alan Balkany wrote:
This is censorship! ... censor a post ... ... to censor this post?
No, it's not; your post is here[^]. And besides: if the editors of newspapers and books can choose what to publish why do the administrators of any generic site can't choose what stays in the site?
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
I disagree. Moving it to an obscure section IS censorship. Are you the one who did it? Did someone ask you to? If so, who?
-
I'd like to second Ahmed's question. This is censorship! We would like an explanation from whoever censored this post. Why do you feel you have to censor a post that claims (with justification): 1. The Democrats and Republicans have collaborated to export US jobs to low-wage countries. 2. Despite Democrats' "concern" about working Americans, their presidential candidates haven't proposed withdrawing from NAFTA. 3. Ralph Nader is the only candidate to advocate withdrawing from NAFTA, implementing a single-payer universal health care system, and cutting the huge military budget. 4. The Democrats' and Republicans' funding by, and collaboration with, big corporations is fascist by definition. These are statements of fact! Did someone ask you to censor this post? If so, who? You are violating your own rules!
Eh? The thread was moved to a more appropriate forum. It still exists, and is still collecting replies. And, for the record, WTF? This is a site for programmers. A privately-run site where rules are set by the site owners (a shady Canadian cabal bent on world domination, for what it's worth) You don't have any more of a right to post here than the rest of us do. And if you really, really, really feel strongly about this stuff, then maybe you should avoid pissing everyone off shoving your opinions down our throats. I've gotta tell ya - after this little exchange, i'm starting to re-think my decision to vote for Nader. :|
-
Censorship IS a public issue, and SHOULD BE discussed publicly. And there was no "trouble" before the censorship. We are entitled to ask questions.
Alan Balkany wrote:
Censorship IS a public issue
This was not censorship. CP is not a service provided by the government. No-one has a right to publish here. CP is a privately-owned organization, and the owners may allow or deny the privilege of posting to whomsoever they choose at their whim. Further they may choose to edit, delete, or relocate any post for any reason without explanation or public notification. You and I, of course, have the right to register disatisfaction with how they exercise their control of the forums - by not participating.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm not sure if it was ever explicit or not, but those are generally rules whenever you're in polite company. They're topics where all participants in discussion must either be in agreement, or willing to be civil in their responses... and we fulfill neither condition. ;)
Shog9 wrote:
polite company
you have been anything but polite
-
Censorship IS a public issue, and SHOULD BE discussed publicly. And there was no "trouble" before the censorship. We are entitled to ask questions.
Alan Balkany wrote:
We are entitled to ask questions.
Are you still entitled when you ignore the answers? How about if you ask a question that's been asked and answered scores of times already, including once just a few posts prior to you asking it yet again? ;P
-
What if you flame someone up in a Soapbox post and then as a reply to their lounge post you provide a link your Soapbox reply? :-\
led mike
-
Alan's post about Senator Kennedy's letter did not violate the lounge's posting guidelines as far as I can tell. It was
- kid-sister safe
- not a flame war (this one has more to do with responders than the original poster)
- not abusive
- not an ad
- not a programming question
So, Mister Sitemaster, why was the post moved?
Who cares at this point? The site administration decided to move the post. We certainly all know where it is now. Honestly, this thread should follow the thread in question to the Soapbox.
-
Eh? The thread was moved to a more appropriate forum. It still exists, and is still collecting replies. And, for the record, WTF? This is a site for programmers. A privately-run site where rules are set by the site owners (a shady Canadian cabal bent on world domination, for what it's worth) You don't have any more of a right to post here than the rest of us do. And if you really, really, really feel strongly about this stuff, then maybe you should avoid pissing everyone off shoving your opinions down our throats. I've gotta tell ya - after this little exchange, i'm starting to re-think my decision to vote for Nader. :|
-
Shog9 wrote:
polite company
you have been anything but polite
Did you stop reading before you got to the bit of my reply where i stated as much? (that's another rhetorical question, btw)
ahmed zahmed wrote:
you have been anything but polite
And what about you, my friend? What have you been? ...Apart from busily proving my point, that is. :rolleyes:
-
Alan Balkany wrote:
Censorship IS a public issue
This was not censorship. CP is not a service provided by the government. No-one has a right to publish here. CP is a privately-owned organization, and the owners may allow or deny the privilege of posting to whomsoever they choose at their whim. Further they may choose to edit, delete, or relocate any post for any reason without explanation or public notification. You and I, of course, have the right to register disatisfaction with how they exercise their control of the forums - by not participating.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oh you quick clicker! I was just about to click Post Message when yours arrived. ;P
Alan Balkany wrote:
Censorship IS a public issue, and SHOULD BE discussed publicly.
I Agree! Now go find a public place to have your discussion and get the frack out of here.
led mike
-
Who cares at this point? The site administration decided to move the post. We certainly all know where it is now. Honestly, this thread should follow the thread in question to the Soapbox.
-
Shog9 wrote:
i'm starting to re-think my decision to vote for Nader.
Oh no! He'll lose for sure!!!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Did you stop reading before you got to the bit of my reply where i stated as much? (that's another rhetorical question, btw)
ahmed zahmed wrote:
you have been anything but polite
And what about you, my friend? What have you been? ...Apart from busily proving my point, that is. :rolleyes:
Shog9 wrote:
Did you stop reading before you got to the bit of my reply where i stated as much
Yes, I did read your entire post. I didn't see, and after re-reading it, still don't see where you stated that you were less than polite.
Shog9 wrote:
And what about you, my friend? What have you been?
Kindly point out where I've been less than polite and I'll certainly apologize.
Shog9 wrote:
Apart from busily proving my point, that is.
You make me laugh.
-
I'd like to second Ahmed's question. This is censorship! We would like an explanation from whoever censored this post. Why do you feel you have to censor a post that claims (with justification): 1. The Democrats and Republicans have collaborated to export US jobs to low-wage countries. 2. Despite Democrats' "concern" about working Americans, their presidential candidates haven't proposed withdrawing from NAFTA. 3. Ralph Nader is the only candidate to advocate withdrawing from NAFTA, implementing a single-payer universal health care system, and cutting the huge military budget. 4. The Democrats' and Republicans' funding by, and collaboration with, big corporations is fascist by definition. These are statements of fact! Did someone ask you to censor this post? If so, who? You are violating your own rules!
Nope. By the US Supreme Court definition of censorship, you weren't censored. "The Supreme Court has found censorship to be an especially intolerable restriction on freedom of expression. The term censorship might encompass almost any restriction on the dissemination or content of expression, but most fundamentally it means prior restraint—any government scheme for screening either who may speak or the content of what people wish to say before the utterance. Although the Court has never held prior restraint to be inherently unconstitutional, it has emphasized that “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” (Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan 1963, p. 70)." The post was reclassified; i.e. suitable for the soapbox due to the potential for inflamatory comments arising out of it. No matter how many exclamation marks you feel inclined to put in your sentences, you still violated the spirit of the Lounge. As a matter of course, political talks go in the Soapbox - btw, as soon as you start throwing terms like fascist around then it's time to hop on over to the Soapbox. Your post is still there, so please get off your high horse. Paranoid rants don't belong here.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Did you stop reading before you got to the bit of my reply where i stated as much
Yes, I did read your entire post. I didn't see, and after re-reading it, still don't see where you stated that you were less than polite.
Shog9 wrote:
And what about you, my friend? What have you been?
Kindly point out where I've been less than polite and I'll certainly apologize.
Shog9 wrote:
Apart from busily proving my point, that is.
You make me laugh.
-
led mike wrote:
What if you flame someone up in a Soapbox post and then as a reply to their lounge post you provide a link your Soapbox reply?
You've thought of doing that, too, huh? ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I disagree. Moving it to an obscure section IS censorship. Are you the one who did it? Did someone ask you to? If so, who?
Alan Balkany wrote:
Moving it to an obscure section
Eh? The Soapbox obscure? Since when. It's one of the most active forums on the site.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.