From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:58:36 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com
Yet another example of someone who had

their feelings hurt and who is now on a

personal vendetta. It's childish in any case.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.

I did.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.

Oh,,,,,,I see,,,subjective stuff. Why didn;t you just say so.
Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

That should be fairly obvious to anyone who

understands human nature.


Well, forget what you are being taught for a moment and let's pretend
you already arrived at such a point,

QRZ is a

moderated forum. There are rules that are

expected to be followed.

There are hundreds of discussions there and

most people have no

problem.



I'd say MANY people on QRZ have problems. In fact, it led to many new
policies by the owner of the site.

The author of the aforementioned site had a

disagreement with

the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled,

felt personally

persecuted because he couldn't abide by the

rules




More "reading between the lines?"


and was kicked off.

So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to

somehow repair his bruised ego, and garner

support from other people who share his lack

of respect for the rules of civilized on-line

discourse.



Translated, this innocently means those who share his views concerning
censorship.
Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.
=A0
Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors.
Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear
his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

The issue is not censorship.

You said to read his site,,,,I did,,and that very clearly says It is
about censorship. Again, you appear to kow more about the issue than
myself, as you are claiming things that are not on his site. How?

The issue is one

of following the rules

of membership.

Please be specific. What rule did he violate?

When you are in a non-public

forum which is moderated, there are certain

expectations from the participants. Stray from

those rules and you risk losing your

membership.


Instead of being redundant, please be more specific,,that is,,,if,, of
course, you know anything about any "breaking of rules" here and are not
merely siding with QRZ when you have none of the facts and are merely
surmising what you think to be true.


You wouldn't engage in boisterous, lewd

behavior at a private golf club and not expect

to be

reprimanded and expelled. So why should the

same type of behavior be

tolerated on-line?
=A0=A0
LMAO,,you claim no comparison to the acts of anonymous publishing, then
try and make a comparison between hammies and those who belong to a
private golf club? HHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHA! THAT,,,,,,,is not a valid
comparison by any wildest stretch of the imagination.
_
When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But
let's not lose track

of exactly WHY he chose to do such.

YOU are claiming a reason that is not detailed on his site. In fact, his
reasoning set forth is much differetnt from your subjective "reading
between the lines" and assuming rules were broke, with nothing more than
your personal biases and subjective view providing for such.
This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

And in just as many times you have made a

case that freedom of

expression should be universal even on

private forums,

I said nothing of the sort, Dave, your difficluties are really making
you go off the deep end today, and regardless anything I said, it does
not negate your problem with trashing legal actions by those whose
political views you disagree.

and that any rules restricting behavior for the

better common good,

are somehow unfair.

I said nothing of the sort.

You can't have anarchy and expect to remain

civilized.

Google "anarchy" and it has ALWAYS been you and the malicious sock
puppets invoking the term.

There are far too many people who cannot

handle that much

responsibility.

There were also discussions on QRZ on the

"other side".

Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

There are (at least) two sides to every

argument.

And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or
his.

The bottom line is that The author of the site

(Which for some reason

is no longer there as I checked today),

Which lends even more to your non-credibility factor. It is there, Dave.
Your difficulties today know no bounds.

had a personal butting of heads with Floyd

at QRZ, and was kicked

off of that site for not abiding by the rules. =A0=A0

Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate?
_
Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you

may think he is



Your difficulties have you making hypcritical erroneous assumptions all
the live long day.

for

"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ,



Of course we couldn't have you mention "anarchy" without presenting the
word "fascist" and attempting to misattribute it to others, now, could
we, Dave

the

fact remains that

when you belong to a private group, you are

subject to rules.

If you can't abide by them, the

owner/moderator has the right to kick

you off. Plain and simple.

And he has the right to make his own site,,,even more plain and simple,
regardless the fact your bias has you reading between lines and saying
things that are not there,,,,you've always done that on usenet, why
should it be any diferent in any other facets of your life?
_
In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner. In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.

Like I said, for some reason, the site is no

longer there.

And like I said earlier,,it IS still there.

What does that say?

It says your diffculties are now transcending to your computer use. Like
I said before, you need another vacation,,,perhaps a long one to
somewhere other than Florida, as it doesn;t agree with you, somewhere
you can actually relax.

David T. Hall Jr,

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj