Got to love the irony of that.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 5:41 PM EDT |
You've seen the other thread -- closed! |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 5:48 PM EDT |
Did you actually expect anything else? |
| tracyanne Dec 05, 2009 5:50 PM EDT |
There is one solution to TOS discussions of politics, ignore the threads, I do..... ooops. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 5:55 PM EDT |
Careful TA, that kind of adult outlook is not condoned around here. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 05, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
Everyone besides Bob it seems was actually showing some amount of restraint and trying to stay on topic. I chose not to delete it. I have/had several things I wanted to say and was working on it but I do not think it would have helped. We can try to have that conversation here if you like. |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2009 6:19 PM EDT |
@dino: We use evolution here, not outlook. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 6:19 PM EDT |
I agree with Scott. I was actually very impressed with how what started as a pretty poisonous thread was brought squarely and narrowly on topic by most people who posted comments, both those who agrees with me and those who disagreed sharply. I actually had a brief, fleeting hope that we could have a civil discussion about the core issues without going off into political ideology. Silly me. Oh, and no, there is no irony. I've made clear that I see the TOS as perfectly reasonable and said so in the article. The editorial control exercised by Scott was precisely something I defended in the article. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
> Everyone besides Bob it seems was actually showing some amount of restraint and trying to stay on topic. Agreed. I was very deliberately not restrained. As you say, it's closed. > We can try to have that conversation here if you like. Would you consider it OK to ask again the question which was not answered? |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Agreed. I was very deliberately not restrained. Translation: Bob feels free to ignore the TOS whenever he sees fit. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 6:26 PM EDT |
> We use evolution here.. Doesn't evolution get us into dangerous religious territory? :) |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 6:33 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I refuse to mince words any more. That's all. You are free to call that anything you want. I call it honesty. |
| montezuma Dec 05, 2009 6:58 PM EDT |
Obsession perhaps Bob? (runs for cover at 100mph!) |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 7:07 PM EDT |
I never said you weren't honest, Bob. I said you refuse to adhere to the rules set down by the owners and editors of this website. You've made it clear in your last post that you have no intention of following the TOS. If I were in their position I would ban you, not for your beliefs or your positions, but simply for not obeying the TOS. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 7:22 PM EDT |
Hey kids!! Cold weather is here again. That means it's bonfire season!! Go grab a friend and bring all the books you can carry! |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 7:28 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Who is advocating book burning? Who is advocating suppressing ideas? Not me. If you bothered to read the article rather than just go on the attack over and over again you'd know that my principle point is that a private website is private property. Nobody can dictate what someone can or cannot do on their private property. You don't have the right to dictate what LXer.com will publish. Neither does Bob. Neither do I. That is essentially what both you and Bob are demanding. It's your way or the highway. Well... that would be true if this was your website. It's not. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 05, 2009 7:31 PM EDT |
I do not interpret a conversation about government in relation to the concept of free speech as automatically being a TOS violation. If it was about this or that political party or particular politician(s) being right or wrong in their stance on it, then it would have been. From what I read it was not about the politics of free speech but the governments function in relation to it. This is another gray area in relation to the TOS that I wrestle with constantly. Talking about 'government' in relation to anything without getting 'political' is hard, all it takes is one word or sentence for a conversation to dive bomb into a TOS violation. Free speech may or may not be seen as relevant to LXer but having our TOS mentioned and referenced in both articles made it at the minimum of interest in my eyes. Bob, Because of our TOS I think your questions are better sent through PM than in a thread. So you know, I have always had problems being able to type text on blogger. Sometimes I couldn type anything, sometimes I could but it wouldn't show when I hit send or sometimes even be able to create a post on my blog. And it didn't matter which one of my computers I was on. It pissed me off to no end and is one of the main reasons I moved my personal blog to Wordpress. Since doing so I have not had any of those problems. I don't know what it is about blogger but I got tired of fighting it. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 7:49 PM EDT |
caitlyn - If you bothered with honest and reasonable discussion instead of constructing straw men and misrepresenting the positions of others, I might take you seriously. As it is, your refusal to conduct yourself seriously draws a non-serious response. Surely you can appreciate the nature of cause and effect in that regard. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 8:01 PM EDT |
More unjustified name calling and mischaracterizing my writing. It's sad that you seem capable of nothing more. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 8:19 PM EDT |
caitlyn -- Your reaction would be unbelievable from somebody else, but I have come to expect lies and whining from you. So...to be clear: Caitlyn: Quoting: You don't have the right to dictate what LXer.com will publish. Neither does Bob. Neither do I. That is essentially what both you and Bob are demanding. Hmmm, a little history is in order Dean: Quoting: if Lxer editors decide that certain topics or certain manners of speech are not to be allowed on the site, they are indeed restricting freedom of speech. They are within their rights to do so, but it doesn't change the nature of the act ... Caitlyn: Quoting: In a word, nonsense. Nobody has a right to dictate what someone should or should not publish. You don't like my definition of free speech, which happens to be, well, free speech. I can live with that. Both of my constitutional law professors were ok with it back when I was in law school, and I suspect they know the topic better than you do. No reasonable person, myself included, believes that a private site like lxer has to let anybody say anything they want at anytime. I have made that case repeatedly, even though you prefer to ignore that fact and simply repeat your lies about my position. What I have said is this: Quoting: Restrictions tend to have a chilling effect on the range of thought and conversation. If you repress speech long enough, people will begin repressing themselves and some ideas/expressions never come to light. That's no shock to anybody who has actually studied the jurisprudence of free speech, or even anybody who has ever been to a gathering place where people are free to talk to each other. There are boors who monopolize conversations. We wish they would just shut up. At the first opportunity, we pry ourselves away and drift over to another, more interesting, more open conversation. Yes, we have to endure a little unpleasantness, but -- it's got to be better than somebody grabbing a bullhorn and shouting "OK, folks, here are the rules of the evening -- if you can't say something I like, just shut up." |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2009 8:25 PM EDT |
I dont remember asking you to 'shut up' dino, I asked you to talk more. Still haven't taken a crack at it either I see, or is making attacks on someones intellect a proactive stance? |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 8:42 PM EDT |
azer -- About like your refusal to open your eyes and read. What would you like me to talk about that I haven't already said and repeated? You can speak, but you can't make somebody listen. That's the position I am in with Caitlyn. She ignores what I write and pretends that I have said the opposite. What would you have me do? |
| ComputerBob Dec 05, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
I used to enjoy the discussions here at LXer. Though optimism still causes me to drop by here several times each day, I rarely participate, because it seems like every thread that I'm interested in takes the same ugly turns and ends up exactly the same way. Have any of you other regulars noticed that? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 8:57 PM EDT |
> I think your questions are better sent through PM than in a thread. Understood. Thank you. Caitlyn, > If I were in their position I would ban you They are also in a position to note that you always "start it". This thread is no exception. Just look, please. |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2009 9:04 PM EDT |
@dino in this case, and in these 2 thread, a bunch of one liners and in your one post of any length intentionally misrepresenting comments. Yes, I think continuing to ask you to justify your stance is valid. You two seem to be really working at misunderstanding each other, because in several places you have both said the exact same thing, just phrased differently. Caitlyns position is clear and even in your quotes of her are self consistent. Editorial control is not censorship, nor can it ever be construed that way. It is simply editorial control. Censorship prevents that person from expressing there views anywhere in any form. The right to free speech is a given, there is no mandate however that any one else ever has to supply you with a place for you to do so. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 9:19 PM EDT |
> Editorial control is not censorship, nor can it ever be construed that way. If that were the entirety of the article, there would have been no disagreement on anyone's part that I know of. Once sentence doesn't make much of an article, sadly. Benjamin Franklin and Seinfeld made it work, though. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 9:30 PM EDT |
> If that were the entirety of the article, there would have been no disagreement on anyone's part that I know of. That is one of the two major points of the article boiled down to a single line. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 9:47 PM EDT |
azertoth... What in the name of all that is reasonable did I misrepresent? It is caitlyn who consistently misrepresents -- no, lies about -- my position. I'll admit that I get tired of repeating all that for the benefit of people who refuse to be honest, but that's just a human foible. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 9:50 PM EDT |
...and I get tired of repeatedly being accused of lying when I have been 100% honest and consistent in what I have written. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 10:00 PM EDT |
Just can't stop, can you, caitlyn? With proof before your eyes, you choose to look the other way. Of course. Why would you change tack now? |
| montezuma Dec 05, 2009 10:18 PM EDT |
Dino, I can see your point of view clearly and I think it is intellectually defensible. I also think it is wrong. Let me summarize it: 1) Lxer has the right to publish what it sees fit. Thus the TOS is *legally* fine. 2) You believe this site would be better served if the political aspect of the TOS was either removed or interpreted much more liberally than is the case at present. The reason why I think you are wrong: As everyone who frequents this forum knows there has been much dissension lately and several threads have been locked as a result. I know this since I have been involved in some of the slanging matches. This is what ComputerBob is referring to and I agree with him. The origin of this unproductive conflict is quite clearly strong differences in political viewpoint. Some of us are on the left and some of us are on the right (a number are apolitical). Anyone who reads this forum knows immediately who the rightwingers and leftwingers are. Given that it appears self evident that a civil discussion involving politics is impossible on Lxer. That is the whole point of the TOS. If I thought that civil and productive discussion was posible I would agree with you. But it very clearly is not. I also think that fault attaches to both sides in this. There is a significant amount of "goading" of the other side and a distinct lack of respect. That is unfortunate and really a reflection of the fractious nature of US politics at present. However since this is a linux site and not a politics site the TOS makes perfect sense given the lack of constructive conversations on politics. The "chilling effect on free speech" is not really relevant in that situation. The real chilling effect is on conversation because of strongly partisan political viewpoints. Why anyone would want to continue such an unpoductive exchange really baffles me. If it were to continue, I personally would no longer visit this forum. I am glad that it won't. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!