Why was the post moved?
-
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.
-
I went back and re-read my post, just in case i'd made it so long that it became hard to follow... but, no, it wasn't. Ah, well.
well, then i lack comprehension. my bad.
-
well, then i lack comprehension. my bad.
-
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.
-
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:
a shady Canadian cabal
Surely it's a shady Australian cabal. :-D
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Shog9 wrote:
a shady Canadian cabal
Surely it's a shady Australian cabal. :-D
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
led mike wrote:
Can you say "US Supreme Court" in the Lounge?
I might be able to get away with it being a Brit. ;)
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
MIB - the Men In Barbies...
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
liquidplasmaflow wrote:
this thread should follow the thread in question to the Soapbox.
Of course it should - or simply be deleted in toto - or maybe in the cowardly lion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
or simply be deleted in toto - or maybe in the cowardly lion.
No you didn't? let me read it again, yep you did. That was so bad I don't know what to say. ;P
-
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:
-
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!
:rolleyes: Oh Alan - 1 voting because people disagree with you. Shame on you.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Y'know what's fun? Turning the 1 vote 'someone' gave you into a 4.2. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Y'know what's fun? Turning the 1 vote 'someone' gave you into a 4.2.
Ooh you Minx you.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
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?
Um, they actually did you a favor. You can't imagine the hits that post is going to get now.
Alan Balkany wrote:
If so, who?
Probably one of the webmasters. Its not censorship, its a matter of placing the right posts in the right forum. You wouldn't accept someone asking in the lounge any programming questions, though lord knows we get those sometimes, more than we'd like even. This is the same thing.
"Every time Lotus Notes starts up, somewhere a puppy, a kitten, a lamb, and a baby seal are killed. Lotus Notes is a conspiracy by the forces of Satan to drive us over the brink into madness. The CRC-32 for each file in the installation includes the numbers 666." Gary Wheeler "The secret to a long and healthy life is simple. Don't get ill and don't die." Pete O'Hanlon, courtesy of Rama "I realised that all of my best anecdotes started with "So there we were, pissed". Pete O'Hanlon
-
MIB - the Men In Barbies...
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
That can conjure some scary imagery :~
"Every time Lotus Notes starts up, somewhere a puppy, a kitten, a lamb, and a baby seal are killed. Lotus Notes is a conspiracy by the forces of Satan to drive us over the brink into madness. The CRC-32 for each file in the installation includes the numbers 666." Gary Wheeler "The secret to a long and healthy life is simple. Don't get ill and don't die." Pete O'Hanlon, courtesy of Rama "I realised that all of my best anecdotes started with "So there we were, pissed". Pete O'Hanlon