Censorship

Re: Censorship

Postby torbjon » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:56 pm

hmmm...

Allow me to drift out of the realm of here and now and go to that fantasy land of far away and long ago, dredge up a totally unrelated personal experience and see if it's even possible to take the knowledge and wisdom gained from that unrelated experience and apply it here.

A fish fell on the floor and got ran over by a forklift, turning $100 worth of product into six cents worth of cat food.

Numbnut A is saying it's the guy at the end of lines fault for letting that fish drop onto the floor in the first place.

Numbnut B is saying no, it's the guy at the head of the lines fault for running the line too fast.

Numbnut C is saying no, it's those graders in the middle of the lines fault for tossing that fish onto the table too hard.

Numbnut D is saying no, it's the forklift drivers fault for not watching where he was going.

Numbnut E is saying no, it's the tables fault for not having a lip on it so it's more like a bucket to catch the fish instead of a flat table they can fall off of.

Numbnuts A through D are hot and heavy to blame a human being for the loss of profits, point fingers, not take the blame, pass the buck....

Numbnut E is hot and heavy to NOT blame Any human beings, to point out that Perhaps it's the system / tools themselves that are to "blame", and to suggest that perhaps the best thing to do is to have a shop guy come out here at break time and spot weld a few of strips of stainless steel around the edge of the table to help catch the fish in the future.

For the 20+ years prior to my arrival on the rock, Numbnuts A through D were the "solution", just work harder, just change the human element, just blame the other guy, it's just One Fish so who cares? etc.

Then I came along, someone went off on ME, and I said 'hey, let's just fix this table and see how that goes'.

The result in THAT situation was an increase in production, an increase in quality, and, over the course of time, a Massive increase in company Profits as less product got turned into cat food.

Okay, MAYBE doing a little spot welding here and there, changing the slop of the table a bit, adjusting the water pressure a little, greasing the wheels, etc. WON'T increase production, quality or profits... but we'll Never Know if we don't Try.

Suggesting that other people adjust their attitudes is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. The only attitude a person can adjust is their own. Period. Going around and trying to adjust other peoples attitudes for them just makes a person a jack booted thug and is not cost effective. Any company worth its salt knows this, ergo they devise "idiot proof" systems, equipment, and procedures, allowing them to hire any idiot over the phone, sight unseen, and know damn well that they can plug said idiot into the system regardless of their educational background or linguistic skills and still churn out quality product at a profit.

I have been suggesting since the git go that RU take a hammer to the machine and tinker with it a bit, to quit harping on the Human Element (a totally random and unpredictable thing so why waste time there) and to see if a few minor (or major) adjustments to the MACHINE will help to increase production, quality, and profits...

And I'm taking a BOAT LOAD OF FLACK FOR IT!

Also, there's Ryguys little "FACT" statement... whereas he did indeed make a half assed apology to me Privately about that, publicly there has yet to be a correction of his Error. In my completely worthless opinion it is the "little" things like that, publicly stating "it is a Fact that so and so said such and such" when the reality of the situation is that no such statement was EVER made, puts a bigger "chink in your ATS argument" than ANYTHING I've Ever done here... But I'm an idiot so what do I know?

Anyway, that's "my" problem...

That, and a near complete lack of sex, drugs, and rock and roll in my life, but who cares about that, right?

bah.
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey


Re: Censorship

Postby Access Denied » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:40 pm

lost_shaman wrote:One of the things ATS had right was that ATS simply didn't allow one-liners, Ad Hominems, off-topic posts on an intellectual basis. If you can't post at least two complete sentences and be on-topic without getting personal then just don't post! Anything less might as well be considered 'Internet' Graffiti and thus intellectually BOGUS.

Well, although I agree in principal, I don’t think we need to get THAT militant about it… :)

My main concern is with the quality of the experience for our readership… in general I only take action if I think we’re starting to look like a bunch of idiots who can’t control themselves and stay on-topic… :lol:

mojo wrote:a happy medium would be nice but we all have different opinions and perspectives regarding what may and may not be acceptable, as can be clearly seen by the amount of comment in this thread.

I’m all for a happy medium. One liners for the sake of levity have never been a problem… nor have the occasional off-topic posts (“sidebars” if you will) as it’s to be expected in the normal course of conversation… and should an off-topic discussion evolve into more than a few posts I’ve got no problem with moving them into a new thread of their of own so the discussion can continue (or not lol) without derailing the original thread… and nobody gets “dinged” for it... and our readership is none the wiser. ;)

Hell, one of our longest running threads right now, “McCain v Obama”, started out in a thread in the Exopolitics forum.

torbjon wrote:Also, there's Ryguys little "FACT" statement... whereas he did indeed make a half assed apology to me Privately about that, publicly there has yet to be a correction of his Error. In my completely worthless opinion it is the "little" things like that, publicly stating "it is a Fact that so and so said such and such" when the reality of the situation is that no such statement was EVER made, puts a bigger "chink in your ATS argument" than ANYTHING I've Ever done here... But I'm an idiot so what do I know?

Are you now denying that you believe “AD=ATS” and this is about “censorship”?

As you know, I already pointed out (in private) an example in this thread of where you DID equate my actions to that of ATS so just because Ryan apologized because he said he couldn’t find an example of where you said that doesn’t mean it’s not a “FACT” that you did... or more to Ryan’s point, could be interpreted that way if you're at all concerned about it. As a matter of fact I can point out another example in this thread… as well as in another… if you’d like?

Zep Tepi wrote:The only thing that needs to change is people's attitudes, IMHO.

As I have said I don't know how many times already, an irrelevant, off-topic post was deleted after the member who made the post refused to edit it in accordance with the board rules.

Where's the problem?

And for the record I’ve fought for Chortlon’s right to speak his mind despite the criticism of others for his “in your face” approach since day one…

For him to turn his back on us now over this??? I just don’t know what to say.

I’m a fool for giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Censorship

Postby torbjon » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:22 pm

AD, ya, let's play the "interpretation" game.

on the night of 10/24/08 I received some emails from an address something like this:

[Mod Edit: personally identifiable information removed]

{BOZO EDIT: I made every effort to Remove the "personally identifiable information from that address, regardless, it is important for people to know that the address in question contained a long list of military looking letter designations in all capital letters AND it came from a dot mil domain. Intentional or not, the address itself could be (and was) considered intimidating. thank you}

All emails requested a return receipt, ergo requesting that my email address was live and accepting email... also potentially checking to see if I was at home.

The first email was blank.

the second had these words and nothing else:

===

[tap tap]

Is this thing on?

Tom

======

During the course of my lifetime I have met and known at least 100 "toms". It's a pretty common and generic name. At this point in time I didn't have a clue who this was, but it was 'friendly' and 'playful' so I played along and replied with these words:

====

*sticks finger in ear and wiggles it a bit*

ya, but you might wanna adjust the volume a bit

so, what's all this, then?

====

That got me these words (and only these words) from the same address:

====

Nothing, just thought I'd try to touch base with you first before I go off on you later tonight...

*laughs*


====

That was pretty creepy, but not wanting to be out creeped by anyone, I replied with these words (and only these words):

===

ooo baby, that makes me hot... is BSDM in that list of letters? [Mod Edit: personally identifiable information removed] sounds kinda kinky... can't wait.

===

Now then, up until this point in time I was virtually positive that the person in question was RU mod Access Denied...

BUT

Two things happened when I sent the above words that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

One was that my four year old daughter was sitting on my lap at the time awaiting her turn to use the computer and play her games and she asked me what I was doing. I told her I was sending an email. She asked me "to who?" and it was at that moment that I had to honest with myself and say that I Really didn't know for sure.

The second was that, as you can see from the above email address and the Entire content of the text, there is NO reference to Reality Uncovered, RU, Access Denied, or AD.

Regardless, I still reasonably sure it was AD... or perhaps at this point I was just Hopeful, I'm not 100% certain anymore, but this much Is certain, I Was a little freeked out by the exchange. Despite that, I sent the following words to the email address in question:

===
as an aside, isn't it kinda weird for a mod squad dude to tell a bozo member type dude that he's gonna "go off on" him? I mean, it's cool and all and I'm VERY curious what's up and all, just seems like "special" treatment...

I like being special... we get our own bus all to ourselves.

Also, what's up with the 'return receipts'? doesn't that lag your email? those things are a total turn off on my end, and, with the exception of You, I've always clicked the "f---- that" button and deleted the things unread when other bozos try that thing with me... keep that in mind when you "go off"...

or not..

*shrugs*

later mater
twj
===

That was at 8:57 pm my time. I did Not receive another email response from that person that night.

I was less than stress free for the remainder of the evening. Finally I was able to deliver my daughter into the care of her mother, and at 1:04 am Oct. 25th I logged into RU to see what was up.

There was nothing from anybody regarding anything, Especially the little email exchange I had just had with someone I was hoping was AD but could not be positive of. So I sent a PM to all three mods here, Ryguy, Zep Tepi, and, of course Access Denied.

===
query

Sent at: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:04 am
From: torbjon
To: Zep Tepi ryguy Access Denied
so, I got an email from a (that email address) saying he was gonna "go off" on me tonight...

And that's AD, yes?

In which case that's totally fine,

but if not then I wanna lay in a bit more ammo as I only got about a 1000 rounds here...

thanks.
twj
nsj
===

I waited another Three Hours but never received a reply from ANYONE. Finally, at 4:13am Oct 25th I sent the following PM to the RU3:

===
Sat Oct 25 2008 413am
from twj
to zep, ryguy, ad


okay, so, at the time those emails were coming in I was 99 and 44/100% sure they were from AD, hence I replied to them, but during my last reply Nola was sitting in my lap and asked me what I was doing... "sending an email" sez I "to who?" sez she and that's when I locked up...

I was about to say "Ay Dee" when it dawned on me I actually wasn't 100% sure who the 'ell I was chatting with...

Since she has all the patience of a boiling tea kettle I didn't really have the time to look it up, so I zipped over here and asked you guys...

Now she's with her mom, I've had a chance to look it up (duh, AD is TD, *slaps head*) but I'm still not seeing my public (or private) reaming (or whatever) AND, I simply Have to hit the sack now (sorry)

Also, this weekend is pretty much spent for me, full Nola Patrol all day and all night tomorrow, (Saturday) and a buncha stuff to do on Sunday...

So, the earliest I can take my licks is maybe Sunday night, (if I'm lucky) or Monday morning (if I get up early enough and don't get hit with LAB work)

Again, sorry I can't stay awake any longer but I tried.

If it means anything, I'm rather good at grabbing my ankles *shrugs*

okay, beddy bye time for bozoboy.

rock on
twj
===

The next day I got a PM here from AD, confirming that it was indeed him emailing me. In the PM was the line "didn't mean to freak you out." (which isn't really an apology but whatever) and some lame ass excuse how it was more important to snuggle with missus than to touch bases with the dude you just dumped some thinly veiled threat off onto.

So, I spin, I'm sorry, I "interpret" that above exchange as:

a) whack
b) unprofessional
c) uncool
d) f*cked up
e) inhuman
f) inhumane
g) threatening
h) cruel
i) there is no I in team
j) mean
k) callous
l) uncaring
m) dispassionate
n) unthinking
o) uncalled for
p) heartless
q) selfish
r) egotistical
s) unnecessary
t) unwarranted
u) spiteful
v) abbusive
w) brutal
x) hateful
y) sadistic
z) childish

there's more, but I ran out of letter.

AD, you go right ahead and spin / interpret whatever the hell you want. You told me that The Latrine was the place to be a bozo, but I'm getting Latrine Crap here, in my PM box, and in my home Email. wow. That's cool, that's grown up, and it's oh so Professional.

You and Ryguy have been hell bent on leather to put some concept of yours into my head despite repeated assurances and statements from me that that concept was NOT in my head when this began... but you know what comrade?

It Is Now.

I am now officially stating for the record that this whole fiasco is WHACK WHACK WHACK and you Numbnuts are 100% Responsible for my current opinion. You want me to say officially that you all are acting like those jack booted thugs at ATS?

You are acting like those jack booted thugs at ATS. Happy now? There's your god damned PROOF. I finally said it in words that don't need to be "interpreted". How Cool Is That??

I'm getting bullied left and right, for having and stating an Opinion, IN THE FREEKING LATRINE FER CHRISSAKES! One of the PMs from one of you oh so level headed bozos had the phrase/concept "I thought you were our friend" in it or some such *rolls eyes* That's a standard playground bully tactic and I see it Everyday when I take my kid to the playground. I am Not going to put up with that crap Here.

Here's another one for you spin/interpret:

Blow Me.

That means "I love you too"

Good night, Good luck, and have an oh so pleasant tomorrow.
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Censorship

Postby mojo » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:14 am

i had written another post but realised i was repeating what id pretty much already stated 3 times. :)
Oh well.
i Know you guy's (zep, ry and AD) think this is a non-issue and blown out of all proportion.
from my perspective...and i think torbs, it is about the Core issue, ie Censorship.
at least i think it was up until about page 3 and a 1/2.
now it seems to have taken a severe turn for the worse.
to wipe it off as "peoples attitudes need to change" just devalues input from your own membership.
if thats what you want out of all this thats fine, so long as i know where i stand.
it certainly made me think twice about participating in the conversation.
it has always been about the process and a discussion of the pro's and con's, from my pov anyway, not whether or not chorlton or AD or anyone else was being precious or needed an attitude adjustment.
what is really sad is that something that imo should have been an enlightening and entertaining discussion that "could" have uncovered some important lessons for us all might end up costing you a couple of extremely intelligent, thoughtful and entertaining posters (chorlton and torb) and one dodo (me). I hope that isn't the case because i do enjoy knocking around here. :D

surely its obvious after 5 pages that there are some people who take this issue seriously.
User avatar
mojo
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:19 am

What a bunch of crap, seriously.

You want my opinion Torb? You know what, I don't care if you do or you don't so you're getting it anway.
Get yourself laid ffs.

Once you've done that, take your fingers out of your ears and actually think some before going on off on people, who -and this is not a "playground bully boy" tactic either, it's the truth- consider you as a friend.

You didn't know Tom was AD who in turn is TD? Is that Tom's fault?! He sent you a link to his CV for chrissakes! Easy mistake to make, granted, but as far as I was aware the "strife" outlined above was all in your head simply 'cos you got freaked about who sent you an email.

I guess you missed the **laughs** in that first email eh?
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:21 am

mojo wrote:i had written another post but realised i was repeating what id pretty much already stated 3 times. :)
Oh well.
i Know you guy's (zep, ry and AD) think this is a non-issue and blown out of all proportion.
from my perspective...and i think torbs, it is about the Core issue, ie Censorship.
at least i think it was up until about page 3 and a 1/2.
now it seems to have taken a severe turn for the worse.
to wipe it off as "peoples attitudes need to change" just devalues input from your own membership.
if thats what you want out of all this thats fine, so long as i know where i stand.
it certainly made me think twice about participating in the conversation.
it has always been about the process and a discussion of the pro's and con's, from my pov anyway, not whether or not chorlton or AD or anyone else was being precious or needed an attitude adjustment.
what is really sad is that something that imo should have been an enlightening and entertaining discussion that "could" have uncovered some important lessons for us all might end up costing you a couple of extremely intelligent, thoughtful and entertaining posters (chorlton and torb) and one dodo (me). I hope that isn't the case because i do enjoy knocking around here. :D

surely its obvious after 5 pages that there are some people who take this issue seriously.


Yep, that much is certainly true. I just wish those same people who take this issue seriously would bring a healthy dose of perspective to the table.

THAT is what I'm talking about.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby ryguy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:07 pm

torbjon wrote:Also, there's Ryguys little "FACT" statement... whereas he did indeed make a half assed apology to me Privately about that, publicly there has yet to be a correction of his Error.


I apologized for claiming to you that you literally said that this situation was the same as what ATS has been up to for some time. You didn't write those exact words, but you obviously implied it. The reason I haven't "corrected my error" is because there was no error, you didn't write those exact words but you did imply it. Which AD explained to you in detail after my PM . You obviously either didn't read it or don't really care, or maybe Zep is right, your fingers are jammed in there.

I am finding your public tone vs. your private tone to be somewhat intriguing though. Choosing new enemies now?

And Mojo...this is what's at the core of the conversation. Is the deletion of a one-line off-topic insult the same as what ATS has done to people? My opinion, which I stated to Torb, is that if you say yes - then I believe you are belittling and destroying the case against ATS. I'm just sitting here shaking my head that people would think such a thing (which 99% of the forums across the internet have as their standard operating procedure) would be construed as the same as what AD, Shawnna, Torb and so many others have outlined as their experiences and conspiracy about ATS. If you think that's true...that it's the same...then I'm going to slowly get up, and tip-toe out the door before all of the loonies in the room realize that the walls are made of rubber.....if you think that's true, that the deletion of a one-liner post is the same as events at ATS - then you're in the wrong forum mate.

Paranoid-conspiracy-theorists who go off on schitzophrenic fantasies about every single entity they have problems with need not apply. Please take your medicine and go back to OM, ATS, and your own forum. Thanks.

That, and a near complete lack of sex, drugs, and rock and roll in my life, but who cares about that, right?


My little sister died in April and my wife has been hospitalized going on 4 times in the past year, twice in just the past six weeks - if you expect sympathy from me, you better move the f--k right on. It's taking every ounce of patience for me right now to not go off on your back-stabbing, oh-look-at-me-i'm-a-poor-martyr ass right now.

That and I got two hours of sleep last night. Yup - hospital again. Rock and Roll? Whatever man...for all your "wisdom" - you don't have a f--kin clue about life. That much is clear to me now.

I better go.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Censorship

Postby torbjon » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:30 pm

Ry:
"Choosing new enemies now?"

no, not enemies

I gotta go.
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Censorship

Postby mojo » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:50 pm

ryguy wrote:And Mojo...this is what's at the core of the conversation. Is the deletion of a one-line off-topic insult the same as what ATS has done to people? My opinion, which I stated to Torb, is that if you say yes - then I believe you are belittling and destroying the case against ATS. I'm just sitting here shaking my head that people would think such a thing (which 99% of the forums across the internet have as their standard operating procedure) would be construed as the same as what AD, Shawnna, Torb and so many others have outlined as their experiences and conspiracy about ATS. If you think that's true...that it's the same...then I'm going to slowly get up, and tip-toe out the door before all of the loonies in the room realize that the walls are made of rubber.....if you think that's true, that the deletion of a one-liner post is the same as events at ATS - then you're in the wrong forum mate.

Paranoid-conspiracy-theorists who go off on schitzophrenic fantasies about every single entity they have problems with need not apply. Please take your medicine and go back to OM, ATS, and your own forum. Thanks.


i beg your pardon!!

where the hell have i suggested anywhere in this thread or anywhere else for that matter that you guy's are acting the same as ats.
in fact i havent likened any of this to anything at all to do with ats, as far as i was concerned it was a discussion about censorship.
I have attempted from the get go, to get this discussion moving in a direction that might have been beneficial to everyone involved.
i tell you what, i'll relate it to running a small business.
correct me if my numbers are wrong.
statistically, out of what....20, 30, 40, "regularly active" posting members 3 or 4 have suggested that they think there is an issue with a policy which is part of your business.
what does that equate too, 1/5th, 1/8th, 1/20th...doesn't matter, its a percentage of your regularconsumers who have raised an issue within your forum, 5% or 10% is too much, and what happens if you don't take it seriously even if you think it's a load of wank.
simple, those consumers will go elsewhere to shop.

You know what mate, maybe i am in the wrong forum.

Ohh and btw, i've been to OM once and never returned, you have probably spent more time there than i ever have.

so long.


(i am sorry to hear of your personal issues that you are dealing with)


to everyone else, its been a blast, good luck (i mean that sincerely).

mojo
User avatar
mojo
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby ryguy » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:33 pm

mojo wrote:i tell you what, i'll relate it to running a small business.
correct me if my numbers are wrong.
statistically, out of what....20, 30, 40, "regularly active" posting members 3 or 4 have suggested that they think there is an issue with a policy which is part of your business.


Your numbers aren't wrong - your classification is. This is far from being a business. This is a free public service that comes at tremendous cost out of our own pockets. If Steve, AD, or myself were receiving some sort of income of any kind from running this service - then yes, I'd say we should be bending over backwards to provide you guys with the utmost, primo, stellar professional "customer service" to be had.

Well guess what mate - this ain't a damn business. We conduct research and produce/publish the results of that research free-of-charge for the public. We offer this discussion area as a place for people to hash out those findings (or publish their own findings/research) if they wish. For FREE. So Steve throws up a few ads to help make the service free for us too...what, that makes this a business? Please... It hasn't by the way - Steve still has to make tremendous personal sacrifice to keep the site up and running.

When we start looking for investors and generating "games" or taking on advertising partners in order to generate revenue, then yeah...y'all can start asking for professional customer service and maybe we'll even hire a mod or two who don't even take part in discussions and only moderate. But guess what - this ain't a freakin' money-making venture here...we're working our asses off to conduct research and publish what we find. This s^~t where you guys are expecting some sort of kid-glove handling of idiotic one-line insulting posts is b.s., plain and simple.

The post was inappropriate, it should have been deleted, and AD did exactly the right thing - I'd expect and hope he would do it the same if it ever happened again.

If you guys want to keep beating this dead horse I'll beat it all to hell along with you guys - I welcome the opportunity to vent.

Meanwhile - we've got a heck of a lot of research leads to follow up on, scammers to expose, and legitimate documents and sources to authenticate, verify, and maybe even publicly disclose. That's what we're gonna continue doing whether a hundred people want to follow along with us - or only one. To be quite frank I don't really give a flying ---- how many people follow along. If you believe in discovering, discussing and providing the truth behind outrageous stories and oddities, that's what we do and we welcome everyone of the same mindset. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do. A business this is not.

If it ever becomes one some day, we may change our operating procedures. Right now this is a free public service and you should treat it as such.

Later,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Censorship

Postby mojo » Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:32 pm

it was an analogy. maybe not a good one but anyway.

would you mind answering my previous post and yours where you accused me of comparing what has occured in this thread with the actions of ats, for someone who is interested in research and revealing the truth it shouldnt be difficult for you to find posts here where i have made that comparison.
and if you could then also provide evidence of my "paranoid-conspiracy-theory schitzophrenic fantasies about every single entity", and then perhaps explain to me why you feel the need to suggest that i am on medication.
or is that the way that intelligent researchers conduct debates and discussions?

i dont know how many times ive stated that from my pov the discussion was not about a one line off topic post getting deleted but actually discussing and reviewing procedures to deal with "censorship".

your right mate, perhaps i didn't fully understand what this forum is all about, thats my fault for not reading the fine print and asking the relevant questions when i joined up, lesson learnt.

fyi i was interested in working on and sharing some of my own research here and maybe helping others out if possible and for the record was up until this point enjoying doing so.
but i will take your advice and take my "medicine" (a lovely glass of woodstock 2005 cabernet shiraz) and nick off back to my site. (which also happens to be a free forum which fortunately some of us are able to help jasn pay for by using the paypal donation link).

well i can't say it hasn't been interesting, lol.

cheers.
User avatar
mojo
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby ryguy » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:05 pm

mojo wrote:it was an analogy. maybe not a good one but anyway.
would you mind answering my previous post and yours where you accused me of comparing what has occured in this thread with the actions of ats, for someone who is interested in research and revealing the truth it shouldnt be difficult for you to find posts here where i have made that comparison.


Sure.

The following are particular comments of yours that are scattered throughout this thread that were clearly intended to take a non-issue (moderator deletion of a one-line off-topic insult) and turn it into an issue of "censorship" (your word - see your quote below) and to add fuel to a small brush fire in order to turn it into a forest fire. Noticed that from your very first post in this thread, by the way. I don't know if your intent was simply to put forward your own personal definition and feelings regarding the general topic of "censorship" - but this particular thread wasn't the place for it.

Here are the two zingers clearly intended to add fuel with the little spiteful comments added at the end for good measure.

perhaps im in the wrong place if where your from and how you speak is that important, no disrespect intended but i think i'll butt out now before i end up getting a post deleted.


Cute.

will i have to be careful how i write here too.
ahh, i'm not trying to stir up s^~t, particularly as i'm a newbie, but i have some fairly strong opinions regarding censorship myself.


Maybe you should have kept those "strong opinions" out of a discussion that had nothing to do with censorship then, instead of stiring up the s^~t in the middle of an already emotionally charged discussion.

From another post of yours:

once again i'm in a 100% agreement with you, i'm not a big fan of off topic posts littering serious discussions, but i don't mind the odd humorous remark within context and hopefully within a post that does add to the discussion.


There's nothing about the one-line post that added anything to the discussion - and we don't remove relevant posts (unlike what you were trying to imply in your earlier post ending with "....before i end up getting a post deleted.")

And yet another:

at the risk of making myself seem like a trouble maker in your eyes and prolonging the discussion in this thread i disagree that it wouldn't have ended any differently if the process had been better.

hasn't there now been a change because of Chorltons raising of what he felt was a bonafide issue?
would this change have occured if not for chorlton taking umbrage at what he felt was censorship?


There you went throwing around the word "censorship" again...fueling those flames like a champ. One thing that became obvious to me throughout this discussion is that you seemed to be enjoying the discontent, and adding to it by constantly referring to the situation as "censorship" even though it was nothing of the sort.

further examples of this drama are inevitable as your forum grows if Chorltons complaint isn't examined seriously now and possible solutions taken into consideration.


Speaking of drama....the above refers to a complaint from someone about the removal of a one-line off-topic insult. Possible solutions? How about this - members will avoid posting one-line off-topic insults as defined clearly in our board rules? Seems like the most logical solution that 99% of the rest of Internet forums out there use.

and if you could then also provide evidence of my "paranoid-conspiracy-theory schitzophrenic fantasies about every single entity", and then perhaps explain to me why you feel the need to suggest that i am on medication.


I was actually talking about anyone in this thread and other threads starting to hint that there are deeper motivations. Did you see Torb's abuse of AD's trust above - sharing his personal email address? wtf is that all about? AD is the kind of guy who will trust someone he meets immediately, and that's the sort of treatment he gets. All I can assume is mental illness of some sort because the alternative implies normal run-of-the-mill nastiness, and I'd rather assume that's not the case.

or is that the way that intelligent researchers conduct debates and discussions?


In the Latrine? Yes. I don't hold back in here...nor do I publish any research, debate, or serious discussion in here.

i dont know how many times ive stated that from my pov the discussion was not about a one line off topic post getting deleted but actually discussing and reviewing procedures to deal with "censorship".


Exactly - inappropriate to this particular discussion, and using the word "censorship" as many times as you did only fueled the flames of an already overly-emotional fire. That wasn't cool.

I'll honestly be sorry to see you go, I enjoyed your insight in the other research threads, but I'm not the type to mince words and not tell it like it is simply to make friends. If you can't see what I've outlined above - I'm sorry. But applying the word censorship to this discussion and fanning the flames as the discussion went on turned this into nothing short of insanity over an issue that should have been open/shut.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Censorship

Postby Access Denied » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:09 pm

mojo wrote:would you mind answering my previous post

But you didn’t answer Ryan’s question…

mojo wrote:i dont know how many times ive stated that from my pov the discussion was not about a one line off topic post getting deleted but actually discussing and reviewing procedures to deal with "censorship".

What censorhip???

Do you really think that was about “censorhip”?

That's what Ryan asked you.

If not then please show us what you consider to be an example of “censorship” on this board.

Or is this about our rules?

If so what’s wrong with them in your opinion?

*confused*


[edit to add: never mind, I see Ryan is already trying to hash this out with you]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Censorship

Postby mojo » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:56 pm

ryguy wrote:Exactly - inappropriate to this particular discussion, and using the word "censorship" as many times as you did only fueled the flames of an already overly-emotional fire. That wasn't cool.



LOL...the title of the thread was Censorship. I didn't realise there was a limit on using the bloody word.
you guy's are amazing, maybe its an aussie thing and noone else gets it, but none of my quotes that you have shown were in anyway meant to be aggressive or cause a disturbance. in fact one of them was followed by a smiley i think which i dont think youve added in the quote.(i maybe wrong, im not about to go through the whole thread to look).
anyway, i replied because you sort of answered me, thats cool.
all this over what could have been an interesting discussion, my god.

sorry for using up your bandwidth, you really dont need to reply to me anymore, unless of course you want to get the last word in. :D

see that, it means i'm kidding, maybe i should do that more, or perhaps sarcasm just doesnt translate well.

anyway this is getting circular and doing nothing for my or your blood pressure so once again, and for the very last time i promise, goodluck and take care.

feel free to deactivate my account if you like.

see you.
User avatar
mojo
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Censorship

Postby ryguy » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:38 am

First, I just wanted to thank you, Mojo, for taking matters privately to PM and the maturity you displayed in that correspondence.

mojo wrote:
ryguy wrote:Exactly - inappropriate to this particular discussion, and using the word "censorship" as many times as you did only fueled the flames of an already overly-emotional fire. That wasn't cool.


LOL...the title of the thread was Censorship. I didn't realise there was a limit on using the bloody word.


True - I think at the core of my own reaction over the last two posts is the fact that the word censorship doesn't apply to this particular case (regardless of the thread name) - however, I do get it now that your interest was more in discussing the issue of censorship, no necessarily tied to this situation.

you guy's are amazing, maybe its an aussie thing and noone else gets it, but none of my quotes that you have shown were in anyway meant to be aggressive or cause a disturbance.


You are right, your posts were not aggressive, and I think my last few responses stem simply from the fact that you got caught in the crossfire between the discussion we were having with Torb. I do want to apologize for my tone to you in here because you didn't deserve that. I have to learn to focus the spray of my shotgun pellets or I end up hurting everyone when I start "going off" in the Latrine. Sorry about that Mojo. I've got no beef with you, and I feel bad you were caught in the crossfire.

feel free to deactivate my account if you like.

see you.


You can be sure that your account will remain active and in good standing. You're welcome back here any time at all. I'll be doing my absolute best to stay out of the Latrine, at least for a few months and until things have settled down so that I have no need to "vent"....lol.

Thanks again for the PM, Mojo. I look forward to seeing you around.

Best,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to The Latrine - Anything Else

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron