Thread
:
While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining websites.....
View Single Post
#
22
April 4th 05, 01:07 PM
Dave Hall
Posts: n/a
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:00:51 -0500,
(I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
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.
Evidently not completely enough.
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.
I didn't think I had to.
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?
And once again, I ask that you read his mail thread from QRZ. In it
Fred Lloyd lays out his "issues".
Why the need for multiple accounts? What possible legitimate use could
one have for that? People who feel the need to remain anonymous (In
addition to their regular account) tend to use those anon accounts
when they want to say something that they'd be ashamed of signing
their real names to.
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,
What?
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.
Some people do have problem. Those who want to play games and hide
behind the cloak of anonymity. But QRZ is better off without those
kind of people.
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?"
I'm sorry if you can't see it. But don't blame me.
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.
If you'd prefer an totally open forum with no rules, and no
accountability, then you deserve the results. You can then have the
Dougies and spammers and sex-porn sock puppets to take away from any
meaningful discussions.
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.
*
Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors.
Then why bring it up?
Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear
his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.
But they violated the rules of a members only forum and were TOSsed
for it.
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?
I only know what I read. I'm surprised that you are unable to
comprehend the issues from the material presented.
The issue is one
of following the rules
of membership.
Please be specific. What rule did he violate?
Let's see if I remember. Holding multiple accounts, placing binary
files. I also believe there was something in there about messages from
a disruptive person traced back to one or two of the people involved.
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.
When you set up a site on your own, using your time and resources, you
have the right to set the rules. As a user, you have the choice to
either abide by them, or not join in. Plain and simple.
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?
**
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.
It is if you understand the behavioral comparisons and your
responsibility as a member of a private group to follow the rules. For
someone who claims to have a good knowledge of history and politics,
you seem to fall glaringly short in areas of human nature and social
behavior, and the concepts of responsibility.
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.
It is clearly illustrated to those who understand human nature.
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.
Rules WERE broken. But you'd have to ask Fred Lloyd for exact details.
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.
There is no American birthright that claims that anyone has the right
to ignore the rules of a private club and expect to remain as a
member. There is also no American patriotic birthright that allows
people the right to selectively ignore any law they feel is "unjust"
and then claim civil disobedience as some sort of weak justification
for it. The prisons are full of people who tried that trick. It's no
different than those guys who try (and fail) to sue the IRS claiming
that federal income tax is unconstitutional. While I laud their
efforts, the law is not on their side.
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.
Who's legal actions did I trash?
and that any rules restricting behavior for the
better common good,
are somehow unfair.
I said nothing of the sort.
You implied as much. You seem to think that Fred Lloyd did not have
the right to kick off the author of "****qrz.com" for what he claimed
were rules violations.
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.
And that means what exactly?
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).
So you are now claiming that Fred is a liar?
There are (at least) two sides to every
argument.
And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or
his.
There is no "my side". There is only what happened and the reasons
given for why it happened.
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.
It was not there when I checked at the time I posted. It has since
returned. I don't know what the problem was.
had a personal butting of heads with Floyd
at QRZ, and was kicked
off of that site for not abiding by the rules. **
Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate?
Ask Fred, he'll give you a better explanation than I will. I am just a
casual observer.
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.
In what way?
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
If the shoe fits.......
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
They are there to anyone who takes the time to actually READ the whole
thing.
In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner.
There is something that you STILL don't understand about me. I can
separate factual events from personal opinion. I actually like the
site, but I also understand the feelings that pushed him to make it.
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.
Hitler was once an underdog too.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
Reply With Quote