You can't please all the people all the time (page 3)

mouthy

You KNOW how I feel Simon.....Your the man!!!!((((hug)))

Keep up the good work.It has helped many.....One mans meat is another mans poison,If folks dont like what you say. Go somewhere else.

OUTLAW

Hey Simon,I don`t know how you do it.You are incredibly fair with everyone on this board,yet some always find reason to complain..I wouldn`t worry about it...OUTLAW

You are right, you can't please all of the people all of them time. I think you are doing very well considering the heated nature of the discussions that come out here. You can always try to be fair and there will still be someone crying "foul". It's your board and I really believe that you allow so much that would never be possible on other boards. Thanks for providing a place that helps so many and has the sense of community that this one does.

With that said, can Heaven and I have some special dispensation about the 20 posts per day rule when posting about football? Cuz there are only 2 of us and so many boys, we are kinda outnumbered even though our team is better than theirs

Thanks again Simon!!!

XW

Skeptic

Simon, you rock!

You are more than fair and reasonable. So far, your judgement has been right on the mark as far as I am concerned. Keep up the good work.

The Internet is full of loons. Nature of the beast.

Richard

wasasister

Lest this turn into a "Simon, you rock!" thread....

Let's talk about freedom of speech a bit. Where does one draw the line between free expression and hate crimes? That's an interesting subject and one which will long be debated in free societies.

We in the Western World jealously guard our freedoms and will only give them up when we see a clear threat to our security or way of life. After 9-11, we in the USA have struggled with how much of our freedoms we are willing to give up to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. We're all used to the searches at airports, but now we're talking about "Homeland Security" and allowing the government to intrude further into our privacy. Is it a slippery slope?

We accept laws restricting certain forms of pornography. While we do not wish to have moral police, we do acknowledge that certain extreme portrayals of violence against women (so-called snuff films for example) can be seen as a way to dehumanize a segment of our society. Even where extreme or violent sexual portrayals are permitted, it is understood access to such "entertainment" should be restricted.

Much the same reasoning can be used when discussing hate crimes or hate speech. Free countries allow organizations such as the KKK to exist, produce literature, march in the streets, etc. But they cannot erect a swastika in front of a synagogue or burn a cross in a predominately black neighborhood. Again, when a segment of our society is dehumanized (such as calling them False People which is an insidious, backhanded insult) it then makes it easier to take away their human rights. This is where our freedom of expression may be restricted.

Specifically on this forum and on this one sujbect, we had two individuals - Jim and Pom - who constantly brought up the subject of Jews and the Holocaust. It is not as if these are forbidden subjects, and I for one thought there were some valid points discussed on both sides. But what happened was not a reasonable debate; it was thread after thread posting page after page of text from obviously biased web-sites. When someone would shoot holes in the so-called facts and point out flaws in the reasoning, Jim would simply avoid the questions and begin yet another thread.

I was flamed for accusing Jim of having poor reading comprehension skills, yet I sincerely believe this was part of the problem from the beginning. He was either not intelligent enough, or perhaps not patient enough to read thoroughly through what he himself had referenced. If he had done so, and also if he had objectively considered what others posted in rebuttal, he may have softened his stance or perhaps simply realized how obsessive he was becomming.

Simon cannot be expected to perfectly enforce what civilized governments have been debating for decades: how to limit free speech where it may infringe on the rights and sensibilites of others. It is one of the most difficult dilemmas of any free society.

Sincerely,

Wasa

SpannerintheWorks

Wasa,

Well said!

Spanner

Golden Girl

Before you ban someone..you could ask us to vote!..

Then we can yell at you for fixing the vote!..How's that?

Snoozy....

refiners fire

Jim WAS a sweet and loveable guy. I did like his personal manner.

He wasnt Disimmilar to Don McC.... A guy I knew over here, Quiet spoken. Reasonable. lived in a house with no TV, no radio, all him and his wife had for entertainment was two hard backed chairs and a shrine with a cross on it that they prayed to night and day. His wife was a sweet pale faced woman who baked a lot and made cool drinks for the menfolk with ice cubes in them. A decent woman.

Until she opened her mouth, then the vitreolic bile and hate would spew forth. Listning to that woman talk would freeze your blood with horror. I never heard talk of murder and sheer HATE like that before.

bigboi

When someone would shoot holes in the so-called facts and point out flaws in the reasoning, Jim would simply avoid the questions and begin yet another thread.

Exactly. That showed me a long time ago that this dude wasn't interested in a real discussion. He simply wanted to rile ppl up and advance his own agenda, which while lacking specifics for the most, was defintely biased towards ppl of Jewish descent.

Smoldering Wick

rf,

That lady sounds like the witch in Hansel & Gretel. I wouldn't go to her house for pie & cookies!

I might bake some for Simon, though.

You can't please all the people all the time