Selective Banning (page 7)

WildHorses

Bg, with all due respect. If you do not like the way Simon runs this forum, and you now have one which you like. That has no rules (which you like). Why do you wish to continue this arguement?

If I, or most people for that matter, found they no longer liked it here. We would just move on. All this bickering is doing is causing hard feelings between once friendly people.

Simon has granted access to this discussion board to those who request access. Sort of like having a mall that you must ask for access to. But the mall, and this board, still remain private property. If you do something the mall owner finds offensive, you'll find yourself booted from the mall, no questions asked. Same with this discussion forum. And yes, some things in life are black and white. Your right of unfettered free speech ends at the boundaries of someone else's private property.

I have yet to hear a clear and consise reason for Dans demise on this board other than he annoyed it's owner.

What other reason is needed?

I personally am involved with the graffiti scene and wanted to post a comment in regards to a comment refering to it. But of course you've got to pick appart what i say and bring up things I've posted else where, in what I can only think is some attempt to get me to break down and say how right you all are and how illogical all I have spoken on this matter was. Well I'm quite fond of my convictions and feel, in this instance, that i do have a valid view point. You're beating a dead horse. I've already been here. I'm more interested in the analogy I commented on and it's poster now.

Sorry, but most of that paragraph went whizzing by my right ear. I quoted your previous post in this thread only. I disagree with you, that is obvious. Stating my disagreement (without personal insults) is not the same as trying to get you to break down.

But then I'm illogical, irrational and irrelivant by your insinuations.

I don't need to insinuate that which I can clearly state. I think that, in this instance, your point of view is illogical and irrational, in that you are creating issues of freedom of speech where none exist. As for your relevance, you have as much of that as any other guest on the forum, myself included.

Now, since we have both stated our opinions, perhaps it's time to move on, so that discussion does not turn to insult.

Expatbrit

Edited by - expatbrit on 19 August 2002 20:42:10

Bgurltryal

Lilac-much of my last statement shows I have no wish to bring this up and was commenting on something else.

I personally am involved with the graffiti scene and wanted to post a comment in regards to a comment refering to it

Someone else chose to raise the topic again and I also stated that I'm over it.

You're beating a dead horse. I've already been here. I'm more interested in the analogy I commented on and it's poster now.

Read my posts before you comment please.

I'm a consenting adult and I chose to post here just like you. geez!

You do realise you just add to it by making your comment.

teejay

btw...

Sorry for imposing on the board again, but Dubla?

I really liked what you said at the very end. You know... the name calling part? Folks w/ weak arguments always resort to that and I mean ALWAYS. Every... single... time.

It's the tip-off you know.... that they have lost, KNOW they have lost and are, more or less, genuflecting / bowing before you / kissing your... um... pinky finger for having BEAT them fair and square. Happens every time. Trust me. I know.

Even though I don't know what words to put on it, all I know is, He lost the debate (<---- pointing left) and He (----> pointing right) won. Not that *that* is important, really. Still, errrabody here knows who is who and which is which.

____________

p.s.

In real life, not more than ten days ago, I came across a 30+ year old man. A Black man, he is. Rose up from pretty much the same soil I did, too. Only difference is: he went and got him one of them there day-grees (I didn't) and he wasn't never no Dub (I *wuzz*).

I won't bore none 'a y'all with all the pitiful details (since they don't matter, no way) but I *will* tell you this: I had a flashback.

After dealing with this man (purdy much like me) in real life.. I figgered that, since he was a straight-fool, "See there??!!! Them stupid gb members wuz right afta all. "A college edumication doesn't... I say DOESN'T, do a body good."

Thass right!! Thass whut I said to m'sef.

Caught myself, tho. One thing I know (and maybe I'm lucky...) not all educated people are fools.

Only some are.

Bgurltryal

What other reason is needed?

One that was in clear violation of the terms of agreement I agreed upon when registering.

I don't need to insinuate that which I can clearly state. I think that, in this instance, your point of view is illogical and irrational, in that you are creating issues of freedom of speech where none exist.

I say insinuate because if I yell 'personal attack' you'll be all over me.

Hmmm...when have i created issues of free speech? You put Dans words in my mouth. A few people seem to confuse agreeing with the right to say something with agreeing with what is said. I have only ever stated it as an issue of closed mindedness.

mevirginia

Bgurltryal

Since you're obviously not done with it as you said you were, I'll coment.

You don't have to read it you know.

But Simon has granted public access to his 'property' much like a mall. Everything is owned by someone, even that which is open to the public.

Yes he has and that access includes accepting and agreeing to abide by his FEW requests. When you sign on and become a member you automatically agree to do that.

To agree to the conditions just so you can become a member for the purpose to disagree is fruitless.

Not to mention unreasonable .

If you owned the wall, you could do whatever you liked, within the laws of the land. Just because people object, doesn't mean their objections have any logical or rational basis

Things aren't that black and white and you know it. I could go on for ever with this back and forth of how this instance would make your past comment invalid and this instance makes my comment invalid but I'm just not that bothered.

Interesting.

Actually it sounds like this entire argument began and has continued because of the Black and White wants by those who believe they should be able to log onto Simons discussion forum and say what ever they want and without regard to anyone else only because they feel the right of freedom of speech is a Black and White issue.

I should be able to say F$$K anytime I want anywhere I want without any interference by anyone because its my right.

THAT is Black and White

Those asking for consideration are the ones that recognize this is not a Black and White issue.

So based on your above opinions, one should be able to walk into a public mall and take out a spray can and tag away?

After all, the mall IS there for public use.

And I would like to see you walk into any public mall, you pick the country, and begin shouting obscenities at the other people in the mall.

Why dont you put your own theory to the test rather then argue it here?

Go into a public mall and start cussing at people walking by because you just want to excersize your right of free speech. Go ahead.

And then after they escort you out, call a lawyer and file a lawsuit against the owners of all the shops in the public mall that pay to run their businesses in that mall.

Let us know how it turns out.

Selective Banning

teejay

WildHorses

expatbrit

Bgurltryal

teejay

Bgurltryal

mevirginia

LB

Solace

LB

Share this