| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
March 30th 05, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining websites.....
|
|
#3
March 30th 05, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#5
March 31st 05, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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? 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. Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not anonymous. When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves. 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 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). 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. 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. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
#6
April 1st 05, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:58:36 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. The issue is one of following the rules of membership. 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. 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? 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. 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, and that any rules restricting behavior for the better common good, are somehow unfair. You can't have anarchy and expect to remain civilized. 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. The bottom line is that The author of the site (Which for some reason is no longer there as I checked today), had a personal butting of heads with Floyd at QRZ, and was kicked off of that site for not abiding by the rules. 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 for "standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ, 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. 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. What does that say? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
