Posts by Bgurltryal

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

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.

75

Selective Banning

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

i hate to see people get banned or silenced - even the people who are causing trouble.

when it comes to regulations, i could almost be described as libertarian.

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

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.

75

Selective Banning

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

i hate to see people get banned or silenced - even the people who are causing trouble.

when it comes to regulations, i could almost be described as libertarian.

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

Bgurltryal

Nope. Simon is currently using his domain property as a discussion forum. This is entirely his choice, and because the domain is his private property he can change this at any time. He could change it tomorrow to a Britney Spears fan site, and that would be entirely within his prerogatives. If this site was public, it would hardly be owned by one person in that way would it? Also, if this site was public, you wouldn't have to register to become a member to use it. Simon has a domain and he currently chooses to let others post messages to it. That is the bottom line, and everything else is pie in the sky.

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. Sure I registered, but i guess i missed the clause about bugging the wrong person getting you expelled. I have yet to hear a clear and consise reason for Dans demise on this board other than he annoyed it's owner. This is petty. I will complain. I am within the terms of the registering agreement to do so, since I have to watch that now.

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. 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.

Your level of tiredness has no relevance to the value and accuracy of the analogy.

Boy...you'll grasp at anything won't you. This is getting silly.

I don't find it to be a logical analogy at all. When everyone parrots the same phrase it just doesn't seem like they're thinking before they type. But then I'm illogical, irrational and irrelivant by your insinuations.

75

Selective Banning

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

i hate to see people get banned or silenced - even the people who are causing trouble.

when it comes to regulations, i could almost be described as libertarian.

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

Bgurltryal

If you were advocating to do it specifically to Jan H i would want to know why before commiting to either side.