When will LXer develop kill files?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cubrewer Dec 05, 2009 10:00 PM EDT |
(That subject sounds violent... in usenet, a kill file was just a list of authors, keywords, etc. identifying posts that you do not wish to see) caitlyn's recent, completely off-topic (IMHO) posts suggest that I could enjoy LXer better without her work. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 10:19 PM EDT |
Scott has made clear that he felt the posts were on topic. Since he's the editor his opinion supersedes yours or mine. When you run a site like this you can exclude authors you don't like. I generally don't like your comments but I am under no illusion that it would be right or proper for me to ask that you be excluded. BTW, both LinuxToday and Tuxmachines.org have been picking up my articles on free speech so they obviously consider them on topic as well. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 11:56 PM EDT |
cubrewer - I have to disagree with you. Though caitlyn, if I recall correctly, doesn't have much use for RMS, his saying "free as in speech, not as in beer" is in point. Free speech and free software are not merely intermingled, but free software is itself a form of free expression. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 12:03 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: It would be incorrect to say I "don't have much use" for RMS. It would be more accurate to say that I don't agree with his characterization of free software as a moral or ethical issue. I also don't like his style at times, which tends to offend people. I certainly recognize his contributions to the FOSS movement and the code he has written. I also very much agree with his take on cloud computing. |
| azerthoth Dec 06, 2009 12:06 AM EDT |
Stop it caitlyn I'm tired of agreeing with you. Although I'm sure we will find more things to argue over as time progresses. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 12:08 AM EDT |
azerthoth: LOL. I'm always up for a well reasoned, civil debate with you. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 12:08 AM EDT |
Caitlyn - I stand corrected. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 06, 2009 12:09 AM EDT |
I don't know what to say. I swear I only had the most positive of intentions in wanting to post this article and talk about it. I really thought that we could have a productive discussion and exchange of ideas. I have had to close two threads in relation to this article that had the promise of becoming great conversations and it seems that all it has done is make our forums look like a dagger throwing contest. I want to apologize to everyone, my publisher, my fellow editors, our readers and members of our forums. Good or bad this whole thing ultimately rests on my shoulders, I am the one who decides what gets posted and why. It is my responsibility to defend our TOS and interpret how it is enforced. I am sorry. I feel that LXer's reputation has been sullied in the eyes of many and can only hope that I have the opportunity to repair it and in some way redeem myself. Scott Ruecker Editor-in-Chief |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 12:13 AM EDT |
FWIW, Scott, I honestly don't think you did anything wrong. As I pointed out the other major Linux portals have been picking up my stuff, I'd assume for the same reasons you did. I don't think you can blame yourself for the poor conduct of some. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 12:16 AM EDT |
Scott - You shouldn't apologize for posting this article, even if you don't like the way things turned out. It is directly related to free software -- which is, ahem, about the exercise of a sort of freedom and relies specifically on freedoms that either are or are similar to, free speech. If these postings have sullied Lxer's reputation in any meaningful way, then it didn't have much of a reputation to begin with. I don't think that's the case. More likely a matter of you can't please everyone all the time. Silly to try. Better to present a site that is relevant and interesting and recognize that everyone will consider some part of it to be noise. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
Heck, Scott, dinotrac and I are in full agreement in this thread. That alone should give you cause for hope :) Besides, the article for O'Reilly which I submitted tonight should be far less controversial. The only way it could become controversial is if a Microsoft shill showed up. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 12:22 AM EDT |
caitlyn -- We were actually in agreement in the other threads, which was part of the problem. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 12:24 AM EDT |
If you start hugging I am going to barf. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 12:25 AM EDT |
tuxchick -- No need to reach for the barf bag. We weren't in complete agreement. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 12:30 AM EDT |
Darned close, though. |
| bigg Dec 06, 2009 12:45 AM EDT |
Scott, It's called editorial discretion. You did your job and made the call. Please don't apologize - if the discussions that followed were inappropriate, you did your job there too and shut them down. |
| gus3 Dec 06, 2009 1:53 AM EDT |
@tc: You owe me a new keyboard. I've never laughed so hard an LXer comment. |
| gus3 Dec 06, 2009 2:29 AM EDT |
35 minutes later, I'm still laughing. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 3:19 AM EDT |
Oh good gus3, then I'm not the only one :) |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 06, 2009 10:16 AM EDT |
cubrewer? How do you pronounce your alias? To my ears it comes out like one of the hairy characters in the Star Wars series*, is that you? In any case, I have a tip for you on reading LXer stories: skip most of them. Any that offend your refined sensitives should eschewed based just on the word choices in the summary alone, that is fly by. Others are rewording of the same story appearing on other sites. No real news there, pay no heed. Better yet, should you see one item really offensive just closed your eyes and hit the page [down or up] button repeatedly. Now you will feel better all without the need to recode the site to fit your special needs. We need your services in the intergalactic wars, so fight on and ignore the trivia seen here. That is true whatever side you are fighting on. So Kill, Kill, Kill! YBT * I have been mostly successful avoiding them all. P.S. Scott, I for one will never forgive your editorial screw ups. Hang your head in shame, there is no repentance that will suffice to unsully your name in my eyes. Do you see the harm done to this individual (not I - the one I am writing to stupid). S/he will not fight on due to your errors. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
Scott: Don't apologize, you were not the one who screwed up. You were the one doing your job. Which is posting stuff that might interest our readers (the result of the topic starter suggest they can judge on their own), and after that the editorial babysitting in the threads. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 4:56 PM EDT |
Hey, if complaining means Scott will blacklist stories I don't want to read from LXer, here is my list: -anything from Daniweb -Enderle -anything with kittens -anything that mentions distros I don't like -anything that generates comments I don't like Thanks Scott, this is a great system! |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
Maybe I should only write things that everyone can agree on. Wait a minute... I can't think of anything to write about that fits that description. TC: What is wrong with kittens? OK, I'm allergic to them but they are cute. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
Kittens are evil, caitlyn, because they totally disrupt a perfectly good free-flowing bout of curmudgeonry. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 5:23 PM EDT |
Basically any discussion that touches US-policies, US-law or US-amendments (posters seem to forget the latter two are not interesting to the majority of the world, but apart from that), intellectual property, equality between sexes and freedom of speech has lead to discussions derailing on LXer - at least the last two years. Not posting stories which are about the mentioned topics would not feel good either. Daniel was so fed up with the comments over here and our vague TOS that he decided not to post here anymore. That can be considered as one problem solved, but still I'm not glad with the result. It's sad to see how only a few people are needed time and time again to derail this discussions every time, and I too am rather sick of it. So are some other readers who left LXer because of the same pattern happening time and time again. Though I have to admit I have been guilty in the past as well, but nowadays I do my best to keep a low profile regarding politic and religious matter. That's how I learned it is possible to discuss this matter without derailing the thread. But you have to censor yourself (which is always better than anyone else doing it for you), and I'm OK with that - if it's better for the community. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 5:31 PM EDT |
> US-policies, US-law or US-amendments (posters seem to forget the latter two are not interesting to the majority to the world, but apart
> from that) U.S. writers will refer to those largely because it's what they know best. They also have been used as models by other governments. Israel, the example I know best, has no constitution, only a basic law which can be changed by the Knesset (parliament) at any time. Courts in Israel have used the U.S. Constitution and legal decisions as well as British common law and British legal decisions as precedent for coming up with decisions of their own. I would also argue that some US writers (myself included) write about American issues for a largely American audience. Considering American impact on the rest of the world such articles can sometimes be of wider interest and sometimes not. Whether, when they relate to Linux and FOSS, they are of interest to LXer.com is a legitimate question to be decided by the editors. I wasn't sorry to see Libervis go. If one or two more people followed his example you could post an article on any of the hot button topics you listed and the conversation would remain civil and on-topic. I'm amazed that the editors have not taken out the ban hammer at all in those cases. Of course, I am not an editor and have zero input into the process. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 5:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:If one or two more people followed his example You did notice some people have the opinion the mentioned "one or two more people" should include _you_ I hope? |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 6:00 PM EDT |
@Hans: I have made very, very clear that I won't post one political word except in response to some of the diatribes that can't be left unchecked. I stand by that. If you want to ban me, please, go right ahead so long as you get rid of the real miscreants at the same time. It's a small sacrifice for me to make and will definitely improve LXer.com. You'd then have to amend my statement to "two or three more people". Oh, and finally, there is only ONE person who has stated his intention to ignore the TOS publicly and that is NOT me. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
>except in response to some of the diatribes that can't be left unchecked. Therein lies the problem, and not just for caitlyn. It's very difficult to leave some outrageously wrong and/or slanted opinion unchecked and uncommented. To mangle Godwin a bit, I should hope that it would always be OK to tell somebody who suggests that we need a new Hitler to haul away all those proprietary software types that we don't operate that way and really don't care to see suggestions that we should. Which, unfortunately, leaves us with another problem: the Hitler cases are few and far between. In the real world, different people will be outraged by different things. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 6:25 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, the best thing to do with diatribes is to ignore them and let the editors handle it. Responding compounds the problem, and if the combatants really want to duke it out then they can take it elsewhere. It's not like we're all going to be brainwashed. More like eyes glazed and move on. I haven't seen a decent politically-tinged discussion on here yet--- as far as I can recall they're on the level of my team vs. your team, my belief system vs. your belief system. What a waste of electrons, who cares? I don't, it's just more fruitless binary thinking. If it got down to specifics like proposed legislation, points of law, trade agreements, and policy then it would be interesting and on-topic. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 6:26 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, don't be afraid, apart from not being able to ban you, (I can only post or edit stories, that's all!) I don't wish to ban any people (well, only one of them I agreed on in the past - and that's for over five years now). I really like the contributions you make. But some of your contributions seem to derail discussions, and maybe there would be a way to prevent that. I was wondering if you noticed some people blame you (and maybe me and some others too) for the 'derailing threads', that's all. For example, I regret some comments I made / stories I posted because it really derailed discussions, and I'm aware of that (ask Dino, he can tell you all about it). It's just like you and I noted, that some people don't wish to 'censor' themselves, and if they don't, then other people have to do it. The latter usual leads to conflicts regarding LXer policies, TOS and such, as was the case with Daniel. I suppose censoring yourself might be better, though not ideal of course. Though the 'freedom-of-speech-knights' will probably not agree and will reason self-censorship is bad. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 6:34 PM EDT |
Indeed, regarding the diatribes that can't be left unchecked: I have to admit I'm seduced to answer them too. It takes some serious yoga to ignore them, and I'm practicing on that. As long as you will be answering those diatribes, people will start those diatribes I'm afraid. Indeed, it's wrong people start such diatribes, and I understand if you don't agree you feel the need to point out so, but it makes things worse. Better ask some editor with 'root-powers' (not me!) to look at it than contaminate discussions even more. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
Hans -- I think we're left with a question of lesser evils. I agree completely that we should all exercise a certain level of civility and self restraint (no need to call that censorship) - lxer is aimed at humans and humans fail. Knowing that, It seems that a site in which caitlyn (to use your example as I look the other way and whistle) derails the occasional discussion is likely to be more interesting than one in which she just keeps her metaphorical mouth shut and deprives us of good and valuable contributions that she might make. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 7:07 PM EDT |
> If it got down to specifics like proposed legislation, points of law, trade agreements, and policy then it would be interesting and on-topic. That's how they start. Then the disagreement about the proposed legislation, repeal, points of law and such, gets one side to accuse the other of making it "political". Being that I'm usually in a minority calling for "repeal", I can attest that stating an unpopular opinion will get one accused of "political posting" faster than anything else. After all, politics that someone agrees with isn't politics. As Dino (and I, and TC, etc) have pointed out in the past, there is very little disagreement about outcomes. We "all" want people to be respected and appreciated for what they do, punished for the harm they do others. We merely disagree on methods to achieve it. It would help greatly if people would keep that in mind more often. So to iterate again, sometimes it's exactly the right thing to just let things go. I certainly intend to do better myself. To allude to a prior discussion, self control is not censorship either. Caitlyn, > I have made very, very clear that I won't post one political word except in response to some of the diatribes that can't be left unchecked. I stand by that. ...but then you say... > Oh, and finally, there is only ONE person who has stated his intention to ignore the TOS publicly and that is NOT me. But Caitlyn, you just stated that you won't post "except in response", which means you already intend to deliberately violate the TOS when you want to do so. Yes, you may very well feel justified in doing so, but then so might someone else. BTW, what I said was that I had deliberately not exercised self control in a specific thread in respond to your comments, not that I intended to violate the TOS in the future. You're the only one to do that so far. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 7:12 PM EDT |
Bob -- Stop that! And go to your room, young man. |
| azerthoth Dec 06, 2009 7:41 PM EDT |
oh good grief. |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 8:00 PM EDT |
@Bob: In the first thread where you responded to my article you objected to the article itself, not any comment I made and went off on a political diatribe all on your own. Nobody else did at all, hence the restraint Scott spoke of. You were called on TOS violation not because of your views but because you launched into a purely political discussion. There is another thread that Hans (unfortunately) revived today called "Couldn't agree more". I couldn't disagree more but it's an intellectual property discussion and I have studiously steered clear of it. If you decide to be intellectually honest and look at the recent threads what bothered you was not my voicing a political opinion in opposition to your because I didn't do that. What really gets your goat, and what I have been doing, is not responding to your arguments (even if I think they are all wet, as I usually do) and instead pointing out they are political and stating they are a TOS violation. Neither you nor Libervis can stand that, can you? That is NOT a TOS violation and that is what I intend to do from here on out. You also both complained that I called the moderators to have threads shut down. In about one third of the cases where I've been accused if that it was, in fact, me, who complained. Others may have too. I don't know. The other cases others must have done the same because I never got a chance too. In at least two cases I can think of I didn't even see the thread until after it was closed. This isn't about Bob vs. Cait and it never has been. Yes, you claim you are the victim because of your political views and therefore get called on TOS violations more. Poppycock! As in the first thread responding to my article you were the only violator. Everybody else showed remarkable restraint. I may not have liked what I saw as name calling and dismissal from dinotrac but that isn't a TOS violation, is is? Nope, technically he was fine. You weren't. Finally, let's get at what really ticked you off about this article. It talked about the rule of law, which you don't believe in, and worse, it used the TOS as an example of a proper set of rules to be enforced by moderators. You hate the TOS, don't you? How dare I defend it? Isn't that what this is really all about this time? Yes, I want the TOS enforced. Rigidly. If I step out of line I should be thwacked with the TOS as much as anyone. Trust me, if that enforcement was happening the way I believe it should be I would never do. Could you say the same? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 8:10 PM EDT |
> oh good grief. AZ, I'm curious, I think you mean this about what I just posted. Can you elaborate what you think was wrong with it? I thought my overt agreement, and discussion of specific statements in this thread was quite "on topic". |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 8:11 PM EDT |
Cliff Notes version of my article, the one that started all of this: --Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are legitimate limitations on free speech imposed by governments for the greater good. Since this is done by government it fits the definition of censorship which is not always evil. --Insisting on the right to publish comments regardless of what the publisher/editor says or feels is not free speech. It is dictating what should be published and is the antithesis of free speech. It is denying the owner/publisher/editor the right to publish their ideas as they see fit. --Comment moderation is not censorship. It doesn't limit free speech. You can speak all you want--just not on someone else's private property. Rules like the TOS and comment moderation are necessary to insure free speech and not let it get drowned out. --Those who should "free speech" and "censorship!" often only want it for themselves and those who agree with them. The "shut up and go away" comment I received is a perfect example. Not terribly political or ideological, is it? It's narrow and covers what is and is not free speech and how that pertains to the web. Of course, if you are a libertarian anarchist any rules or restrictions are objectionable. |
| azerthoth Dec 06, 2009 8:23 PM EDT |
@bob not specifically at you, we were doing so well on the thread then *poof* |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 8:29 PM EDT |
> we were doing so well on the thread then *poof* Thank you. I appreciate your candor. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2009 10:32 PM EDT |
> I want to apologize to everyone, Scott, you have nothing to apologize for. Most of us here are adults. When we choose to go off the rails, we have no one to blame but ourselves. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 10:37 PM EDT |
jdixon - Speak for yourself. I blame you. In fact, I think that's a great solution to the problem. Blame jdixon. He's the problem. Surely everyone can see that. |
| gus3 Dec 06, 2009 10:41 PM EDT |
@dino: But what if caitlyn wants to give him a hug? |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2009 10:43 PM EDT |
> I blame you. In fact, I think that's a great solution to the problem. Blame jdixon. Well, in the first thread, that's a reasonable position, as I'm as much to blame as anyone else. :) I don't think it would work so well for the second thread though, as I had very little to say in it. :( I think it's obvious to everyone that there are four main culprits in the politically based thread closing problem, and that I'm one of them. I'll try cause fewer problems for Scott and company in the future, but I'm can't make any promises as to success. |
| montezuma Dec 06, 2009 11:26 PM EDT |
gus3, Och what an evil laddie you are! |
| gus3 Dec 06, 2009 11:44 PM EDT |
@montezuma: I just don't want to see tuxchick barf. Or for that matter, dino barf. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2009 11:49 PM EDT |
gus - Depends on the dino. If it's one of the really big ones, let me get the heck out of the way first. |
| montezuma Dec 06, 2009 11:50 PM EDT |
Good point gus3. There has been way too much barfing and verbal diarrhoea around these parts lately. As the resident "headmaster" I feel it has to stop. |
| gus3 Dec 07, 2009 12:00 AM EDT |
That comment was supposed to be a JOKE and you're treating it SERIOUSLY?!? Desk, meet forehead. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 12:58 AM EDT |
gus3 -- Pound it a couple of extra times for me. I'd do my own, but I have a large head and a delicate disposition. |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2009 1:06 AM EDT |
And a walnut-sized brain in your tail. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 1:20 AM EDT |
tc - It's the secret weapon that frees my mighty intellect for dealing with the likes of you and your fellow puny rabble. The auxiliary brain handles autonomous functions and simple but necessary functions like reassuring the common folk that I still love and respect them even though they lack my enormous intellectual gifts, good looks, and humility. |
| hkwint Dec 07, 2009 4:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:There is another thread that Hans (unfortunately) revived today Look at the dates more carefully, Caitlyn, and you'll see I wasn't the one reviving that thread after 14 days. I contemplated whether or not to react, and I thought I could add to the discussion by steering it in another direction without it going *poof* again. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 8:16 AM EDT |
Hey Hans! And it was a good comment, too. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 9:26 AM EDT |
Hey gus3, My comment was meant as a joke too. Sorry it fell flat |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 9:37 AM EDT |
montezuma -- You only think it's a joke. Poor Hans has been scrubbing those bits for hours and still can't get rid of the smell. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 10:06 AM EDT |
Dino, Yeah well I apologise for my lame attempt at humor then. It would be great if people were a bit less intense around here. It is only an opinion oriented internet forum after all not kernel trap or another place where they actually do real work. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 10:12 AM EDT |
Why m., that's getting pretty darned close to asking people to act like grownups and recognize that the world will not collapse on the weight of anything written here. What kind of attitude is that? |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
Dino, I find that the internet strips years of maturity away from people who in ordinary social situations are actually quite pleasant people but free of many social constraints on the internet revert to their adolescent alter egos. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 11:05 AM EDT |
M - I'm rubber, you're glue. |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2009 11:09 AM EDT |
I am crippled by nausea. I mean overcome by the magnificence of dino's humble awsomeness. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 11:13 AM EDT |
Dino, Well that figures. You are a lawyer right? j/k j/k j/k j/k |
| bigg Dec 07, 2009 11:14 AM EDT |
@montezuma In other words, the internet is like alcohol, just that you are anonymous and thus will not have to pay a consequence for your actions the next day. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 11:17 AM EDT |
Bigg, Yeah right. Good analogy. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 07, 2009 11:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm rubber, you're glue. Ohhhh, I suddenly have a craving to play Monkey Island Insult Swordfighting X-D |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 11:36 AM EDT |
TC - I am touched. You know -- I do regularly amaze myself. So much, so wonderful, and yet so down to earth. So long as down to earth doesn't require getting my shoes dirty or having to talk with the masses. Or say nice things about their children. Or watch a NASCAR race. Or eat at Arby's. Or Denny's. Or Olive Garden. OR TGI Friday's. Especially TGI Friday's. Or pretend that "Crash" was a smart film instead of a film that lets stupid people feel smart. Or Olde Country Buffet. Or Olde anything, for that matter. Sears? Please, not while I'm eating at someplace that isn't Taco Bell. |
| jdixon Dec 07, 2009 11:50 AM EDT |
> ...just that you are anonymous and thus will not have to pay a consequence for your actions the next day. There's a reason I sign my posts with my name. |
| caitlyn Dec 07, 2009 12:01 PM EDT |
@jdixon: I do the same. If I write it I want to own it for better or worse. I feel I have more credibility if I sign my name. |
| bigg Dec 07, 2009 12:20 PM EDT |
I'd use my name, but when you're on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, that's a pretty dumb thing to do. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 12:22 PM EDT |
I was on the FBI's most wanted list once. Until they met me, that is. |
| gus3 Dec 07, 2009 12:39 PM EDT |
I watched a NASCAR race once, the 2006 Daytona 500. I'll never watch another NASCAR race. But not because of how bad it was. Simply that no other car race will ever have such a spectacular ending, including one car crossing the finish line upside-down and on fire. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
Caitlyn and jdixon, I concede you are less wimpy as a result. However you still do not have to contend with someone getting in your face physically and yelling at you. You are still able to switch off your computer and walk away (hopefully not laughing). |
| caitlyn Dec 07, 2009 3:16 PM EDT |
Until someone is crazy enough or angry enough to track me down where I live or work. |
| jdixon Dec 07, 2009 3:37 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I think your cut and paste went awry. > Until someone is crazy enough or angry enough to track me down where I live or work. Which has been known to happen, so it's not an impossibility. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 3:40 PM EDT |
> Which has been known to happen, PJ at Groklaw comes instantly to mind, as does Eli Rivera. (I doubt anyone here knows the latter) |
| caitlyn Dec 07, 2009 3:44 PM EDT |
Fixed. Yes, we have folks doing Windows support here. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 07, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
@Bob: PJ is a pseudonym, not a real name. Nobody knows who PJ is, what her real name is or even if she is in fact a woman. As opposed to e.g. jdixon, Caitlyn and myself who all sign with their real names. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 6:17 PM EDT |
> PJ is a pseudonym Pamila Jones isn't her name? Oh, you mean using initials, vs using the entire name. I see. Personally, I do use a pseudonym but I use the same one on different sites where possible and have for a decade and more. I believe in reputation, and if banned (as recommended recently) would not simply come back with another name. |
| gus3 Dec 07, 2009 6:34 PM EDT |
Pam Jones is a pseudonym? And to think, Maureen O'Gara expended so much energy to track her down. "Stalker" is the only name I can think of for her, that doesn't involve a profanity. |
| montezuma Dec 07, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
I'm a Mexican-Australian from New York. Go figure. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 7:32 PM EDT |
Yo, amigos.. Can I put a shrimp burrito on the barbie for youse? |
| caitlyn Dec 07, 2009 10:06 PM EDT |
Sounds tasty to me. |
| tuxchick Dec 08, 2009 1:07 AM EDT |
Does not. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 08, 2009 3:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Pamila Jones isn't her name? No, I mean that Pamela Jones isn't her name. Quoting:And to think, Maureen O'Gara expended so much energy to track her down. Why do you think she didn't succeed? :-) PJ is *very* careful. And it wasn't just MoG. SCO also tried (and failed) to find her because SCO thought that PJ was in fact a team of IBM lawyers. |
| gus3 Dec 08, 2009 4:24 AM EDT |
@Sander: Ssssshhhhhhhh! Whatever I can do to send them into another tizzy. |
| AwesomeTux Dec 08, 2009 5:27 AM EDT |
From lxer.com "Terms of Service" or what you call "Terms of Service" when in actuality the "terms" stated wouldn't hold in a court of law. "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted. Also, how can you expect people not to discuss political matters? Politics is where the operating system started (in an effort lead by Richard Stallman to liberate computer users from the popularizing proprietary software), even Linus Torvalds himself made a political move when he started calling the software by a name with the sole purpose to create a pragmatic point of view and to attempt to devalue the freedoms he and others enjoy. |
| caitlyn Dec 08, 2009 8:33 AM EDT |
Let me state this for the umpteenth time: LXer.com is private property. The TOS would stand up in court because legal freedom of speech protections do NOT apply to private property. Privacy rights would have supremacy in this case. Please show me even one legal precedent for your claim that the TOS would not stand up in court. I seriously doubt you can. Demanding to post about politics (or whatever) is not an exercise in free speech. It's an exercise in dictatorship. It's making demands that private media publish what they do not want to publish. It impinges on the free speech of the publisher. Your free speech, OTOH, is not being impinged on because you are free to setup your own website or post somewhere else all the politics you want and all the criticism of LXer.com you want. Your viewpoint shows a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the legal protections surrounding it. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 8:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:This is taking away my freedom of speech Are you going to sue Fox because they don't let you use profain language on TV? Are you going to sue Digg because they don't let you post ads? Are you going to sue Youtube because they don't let you submit porn? Are you going to sue Blogger if you are not allowed to reveal and discuss secret CIA documents? If so, keep us informed, such a thing would be interesting and would sure be fun to watch. If you want freedom of speech, go to your local village, stand on a crate and go ahead. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 9:10 AM EDT |
Awesome (& caitlyn) : The argument about free speech WRT a private place like a web site is not centered around law and legally protected rights. A private place doesn't have to let you in, let alone let you say what you please. The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 9:54 AM EDT |
Awesome, > This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted. You are welcome to write anything you want. The LXer owners can delete anything they want, including anything you write, on THEIR system. Freedom of Speech is personal. There is no obligation on anyone else that they must listen. |
| jdixon Dec 08, 2009 10:01 AM EDT |
> The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit. Yep. Which is another discussion entirely, and one that hasn't yet taken place. To be fair, Scott and company have a very fine line to walk, and much of the time the calls they have to make are going to be extremely subjective. In general, they've done a good job. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
jdixon - >and one that hasn't yet taken place. That's not true. The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic. |
| jdixon Dec 08, 2009 10:37 AM EDT |
> The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic. Some of them, yes. But doesn't that demonstrate what I just said? The discussion hasn't been allowed to take place. And it's not really LXer's moderation that's been stopping it. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 10:56 AM EDT |
>And it's not really LXer's moderation that's been stopping it. I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it isn't. It can be very difficult to advance a discussion when people put beans in their ears. |
| caitlyn Dec 08, 2009 11:26 AM EDT |
It seems we are finally coming to some sort of consensus:Quoting:The argument about free speech WRT a private place like a web site is not centered around law and legally protected rights. A private place doesn't have to let you in, let alone let you say what you please. Thank you! You've just said what I've been saying in a different way. Quoting:The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit. This is an issue I didn't cover in either free speech article but it certainly is a valid point. Too much control or too little control can make a website or blog unappealing. I also agree with jdixon that it is most definitely a delicate balance and I also agree that Scott, Sander and everyone at LXer.com have generally done a good job. WRT my blog I've watched it's Technorati ranking climb sharply and I've also noticed the number of comments is way up. That tells me I must be close to achieving that balance as well. Do I make some poor judgment calls now and again? Sure! Everyone does. I'm human and I make mistakes. Right now, despite defending my right to delete comments, I honestly don't moderate out many. It has to be pretty bad for me to reject it. @Bob_Robertson wrote: Quoting:You are welcome to write anything you want. The LXer owners can delete anything they want, including anything you write, on THEIR system. Amazing. We stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other and we find common ground. Again, same point, different wording, and obviously a point of agreement. @hkwint: Yep. What Awesome is suggesting amounts to appropriating that milk crate or, in American vernacular, that soap box. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 08, 2009 11:28 AM EDT |
dino, I always suspected you were a Java hater, now I have unequivocal proof: Quoting:[...] It can be very difficult to advance a discussion when people put beans in their ears.and so snide to boot. Go about with your refined Tea ways, I chose to ignore you. YBT PS A sure TOS that's going to shut down this thread. How devious. Someone get Scott's attention, please. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
Txt - You're right. I don't see how anybody does anything in that dogforsaken language. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 3:18 PM EDT |
> Amazing. We stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other and we find common ground. So in one way you respect private property. A good start. Dino, > The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic. Sadly, it's only recently that the threads were closed instead of deleted, so much of what might have been is gone. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 4:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yep. Which is another discussion entirely, and one that hasn't yet taken place. Some of it, between the editors (non-public). At one point more discussion than the "contestants" could bear (you're here pretty long, I think you know what I mean). After that, most of it dealing with 'technical' issues about forum layout etc. Quoting:or, in American vernacular, that soap box. Thanks Caitlyn, that was the vernacular I was looking for! Quoting:That tells me I must be close to achieving that balance as well. Which is amazing, given your blog is partly about one of the most difficult issues in history. @Bob, I'm not sure the deleted threads are really gone. I'm not the one dealing with that issue though. Nonetheless, what I know is 'deleted' articles are not gone, they're still on the servers. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 08, 2009 5:08 PM EDT |
Deleted threads do disappear, closed ones do not. Closed threads should still be in your 'watched' threads but are not able to be added too any longer. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 6:04 PM EDT |
Hk,
> @Bob, I'm not sure the deleted threads are really gone. I'm not the one dealing with that issue though. Nonetheless, what I know is 'deleted' articles are not gone, they're still on the servers. Well, they're invisible at least from the user point of view. I had one discussion bookmarked, and when it was "deleted" it would not come up and vanished from the watched and recent lists. The more recent "closed" threads remain on the watched and recent lists, as well as directly accessable via the same direct links. That's just a technical point. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 08, 2009 7:21 PM EDT |
@Bob: There was a time when closed threads would appear to be deleted due to a forum bug. That bug has been corrected a few weeks ago. Check the threads again. If it was closed instead of deleted then it should be visible again. |
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!