BS: Free speech, eh?

Subject: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:34 AM

I wasn't aware of this. Interesting and concerning.

form the CBC

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:55 AM

A useful tool when evaluating a claim for freedom of speech is to invert it. For example, replace "Muslim" by "Jew", and decide then if an argument in that form would be acceptable. I haven't read the article; the BBC news article seems a little more balanced than the CBC one; it also points out that Maclean's refused to publish a response.

Freedom of speech is important; to allow only one side to present the case is not promoting it, and when the medium in question has overwhelming coverage, the failure to present one point of view amounts to support for the other.

There are of course times when a group or individual is so far beyond the pale as to have lost their right to this freedom; no one would support such freedom being extended to extreme racists*, holocaust revisionists who lack overwhelming new evidence**, violent dogmatists** etc. I can't see that mainstream Islam comes into any of these categories.

* including of course antisemites
**i.e. all of them so far
***like al Qaeda and the Clontarf branch of CCE

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 04:03 PM

"Elmasry complains that Steyn's book tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad"

Is it just me or does anyone else find it obtuse of Elmasry to complain that Steyn is claiming that entire Muslim communities are complicit in violent Jihad when the word Jihad is Islamic/Muslim for holy war?
I have heard no major Muslim community expressing it's outrage against their brethren that are involved in the various "Jihads" around the globe, demanding they cease.
I have heard no Muslim clerics preaching love and tolerance of the "infidels" (my wording here meant to include all non-muslims).
I've not seen any Wahabi schools closed down because the clerics had a change of heart.

What I have seen with my own eyes are a proliferation of tracts encouraging Jihad against everything that is not Shariah.

By not speaking out against Jihad, demanding it's end, condeming it's leaders and those who are involved in it, are the Muslim communities not complicit in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

Hmmm. But I know a lot of Muslims who do not believe in either Jihad or in Shariah law. I suspect there are Muslim clerics who don't either, but I don't think we're hearing about them much on the news.

It is extremists whom one hears about on the news, not moderates.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:26 PM

Jihad isn't Islamic/Muslim for "holy war". It's Islamic/Muslim for "struggle to do good". Some Jihad can be violent, but most Jihad isn't violent. I think, on that level at least, Elmasry has a legitimate beef with Steyn's terminology.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:56 PM

CarolC beat me to the punch ~ I have also read that the term "Jihad" can refer to the "warfare" or struggle within one's own soul that is necessary to any effort to live righteously, and that for moderate (sane) Muslims, the vast majority of Muslims, this is the only kind of "jihad" in which they engage.

However, to be fair, is is NOT only critics and "outsiders" like Mr Steyn who interpret the word "jihad" to mean "holy war." Plenty of Muslims, including Islamic clerics and other leaders, are preaching hatred for Westerners, for the modern world in general, and for violent, deadly resitance to all such "alien" influences.

And the more violent and antisocial interpretation of "jihad" is nothing new, either. The rapid spread of Islam in its early days is directly attributable to violence and conquest.

(Of course, Islam is hardly unique among world religions in this regard. Christianity was a small, fragmented, and generally pacifistic movement until the conversion of Constantine, when the church joined forces with the empire.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

Face it, the USA is about the only place in the world that does not restrain unlawful speech. The real question is what is unlawful.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:06 PM

Has anyone here read the book?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

There is intolerance and hate practiced in many religions.....but 'most' religions do not do not have extremist groups which inflict violence on their OWN members when someone speaks out against certain practices.
Muslims have a problem when they don't know when they might be attacked by their supposed 'brethren' for trying to assert moderation.

No I do not have recent and immediate citations, but I have read several things about this situation the last few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:41 PM

I on't want it to sound like I agree with the author, I'm far from what might even be considered a conservative, however I don't think they have grounds to sue him for hate speach. There are movements for Sharia law and other extremist movements that are taking place on at least two different continents not to mention several island states in southeast asia.

It's like the TSA folks strip searching a little old white lady from Pasadena at the airport. She doesn't fit the profile of the folks that caused 9-11, or the ongoing conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, and Malaysia.

I know there are moderate and even liberal Moslems but they need to announce a Jihad against their radical brethren. That's where the bad press really comes from. That is where this author is inspired to make his claims.

Without the radicals and the non-radical groups that refuse to condem them this guy wouldn't be able to sell his book.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:45 PM

Has anyone here read the book?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:56 PM

There have been many, many non-radical Muslims who have condemned the more radical Muslims and the Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and the Muslims who issue fatwas that result in people getting killed. But people in the US and some other Western countries will never hear about those Muslims because it doesn't fit their governments' and their compliant main stream media's agendas to report on those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 09:14 PM

I know where you lean on this one CarolC but the main stream media here have covered alot of different stories on the Muslim faith in this country. They've even covered stories of discrimination and criminal acts against the mosques. Even when they have been the victims of crime against them they have not condemned the radical elements of their own religion that most likely were the target of the attack. I'm not saying that they provoked it or deserved it and I'm not saying that the folks that perpetrated the hate crimes against the mosques/muslims were right or had the right. But these were perfect opportunities to set themselves apart from the radical muslim elements and they didn't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:15 PM

"but 'most' religions do not do not have extremist groups which inflict violence on their OWN members when someone speaks out against certain practices."

Well, there was The Roman Catholic Church, which in earlier times, did a roaring trade (if you'll pardon the expression) in such a business...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 02:43 AM

Like I said, there are numerous examples of moderate Muslims condemning the acts of more extremist Muslims. Anyone in the US who is unaware of these examples can thank the lack of reportage on the part of the main stream media in this country for their lack of awareness. It's not that moderate Muslims aren't condemning the more extremist Muslims, it's that when they do, nobody ever hears about it. That's not the fault of the moderate Musilms. It's the fault of a discriminatory media.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:45 AM

Some examples of Muslims speaking out against and condemning terrorism and Islamic extremism...

http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/9143.htm

January 28, 2002

"When 500,000 Muslims rallied in Pakistan last October for peace and moderation, it was a footnote in the press reports. In that rally, statements against terrorism and for tolerance were made, yet attention remained fixated on the few who burned effigies. After September 11th, Muslims from around the world expressed shock and remorse over the terrorist attacks, ranging from a moment of silence during a soccer match in Iran, to candlelight vigils throughout the Occupied Territories of Palestine. Statements of solidarity with the American people coupled with condemnations of the terrorist attacks were sent from practically every Muslim country. Lack of widespread hostility towards Americans and even many aspects of American culture is one feature of mainstream Muslims."


This page contains links to dozens of condemnations by Muslims of terrorism and Islamic extremism...

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php


http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:OwlTNQacu_gJ:www.daralnoor.org/pr/MAVPressRelease_072505.pdf+%22muslims+condemn+terrorists%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php/id2418/comments.php?id=1497

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/811

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1015/p03s02-usfp.html?page=1

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:05 AM

Muslims issue a Fatwa against Osama bin Laden...

http://www.int-review.org/terr42a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:06 PM

Thanks CarolC. I withdraw my previous statements.
On a more disturbing note...
The U.S. command in Iraq believes yesterdays car bombing may have been perpetrated by an Iranian backed Shiite group against Iraqi Shiites to incite violence against Sunnis. No confirmation of course and this could be more sabre rattling by the administration but AlQuaida in Iraq has not claimed responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

It is downright REMARKABLE, Carol, that all those links come from so far afield, rather than being covered by our own media. Wouldn't ya think our brave journalists would be interested? Hmmmmm? ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

Yeah, eh? Mysterious, ain't it? ;-)

You know, there are many kinds of censorship, and we are getting one kind in the North American media. It's the kind of censorship that is accomplished by choosing to report and emphasize certain stories, while selectively ignoring others, and it doesn't just happen around the issues being discussed here.

It's a very clear policy, and one that is practiced pretty consistently by those who own the large media chains in North America. They decide what is "news" and what isn't. That is how you control public perceptions in a supposedly free society.

Peace - "Has anyone here read the book?"

No.... But I have read "How To Pick Up Fast Girls in Sudbury". I haven't had a chance to see if it's any good, though, because I never go to Sudbury if I can possibly help it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: bankley
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:28 PM

I tried reading the book, but for the first part it didn't make any sense at all.. then I stood on me head an' realized that it was upside doon ...
has anyone visited these places, ,,,,, in person???

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:23 PM

waddaya talking about there is nothing un-American about the Christian Science Monitor, or Boston. Plus it gets lots of great all-American awards.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM

"Jihad" and derived forms of this word are found in the Koran 35 times. In 29 of these 35 times the meaning in the context is "armed fight".

Yes, "inner struggle" also happens to be one meaning of "jihad".

Most Jihad is not violent?

In reading Muslim literature - both contemporary and classical - one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superceded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue,
and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible. Presentations along these lines are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their bias and deliberate ignorance of the Muslim sources and attitudes toward the subject. (D. Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 165f)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:04 PM

I have just been browsing thru the links Carol posted. Although I have not read each & every one, I find 2 major patterns.

The first is older notes and lists of sympathy for and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. At that time, many, many Muslims in various places joined in expressing horror at the attacks and in asserting the basic peaceful messages in the Koran. Since then, there are far fewer comments...possibly because of the details of how the Bush administration went about seeking retribution.

The second pattern I see involving Islamic statements of moderation since 9/11 is that they are largely from NON-Muslim majority nations. Muslim scholars & clerics in the US, Canada, Spain, Denmark and others have, indeed, decried terror and violent Jihad.....but except for a largely grassroots rally in Pakistan, I see little evidence of Muslim clerics & scholars in nations from Egypt to Saudi Arabia attempting to guide their followers away from sympathy to and support of, terrorist causes. THIS is the situation I was most concerned with in my earlier comment.
I am not suprised by this....I just still claim that it does represent a common problem. Until the extremist clerics can be controlled and openly anti-American schools and training centers calmed down IN Muslim countries, I don't expect see much progress. And I do not feel that finding one or two counter-examples will disprove my claim. IF anyone has information to make me less apprehensive, I'd be glad to see it.

My point is....openly moderate Muslims in several countries speak out at their own peril, as there are few safeguards in place to protect such folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM

Of course non-violent Jihad is the more common form. Jihad is a practice, not just an idea. There are close to a billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of those people are not practicing armed or violent Jihad. If Jihad is a central tenet/practice in the Muslim faith, this means that most of the (almost) billion Muslims in the world are practicing the non-violent form of Jihad.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,oll
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 07:24 PM

The Human Rights Commissions in Canada have become a sick joke (as has the United Nations Human Rights Council), expect these kangaroo courts to have their powers reduced soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:39 PM

*sigh*..Carol, you are of course, right in what you say about 'most' Muslims being non-violent, but it still does not address the problem.

'Most' folks in the inner-city ghettos are aslo non-violent, but those who do espouse and employ violence color the entire issue. Most of the Muslim population of the world does NOT engage in terrorism, but most of those who are committing acts of terrorism are Muslim. Muslim religion and culture is being corrupted to further extremist policies...BY other Muslims. The violence is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, whether most followers are involved or not...just as racial hatred was fomented in this country by supposed Christians and Christian values were corrupted and perverted to defend the hate.

In order for ANY group to combat evil being done in its name, cleansing must be done from within the group and led by recognized persons in the group! As long as minor clerics get away with declaring Fatwas against anyone they don't like, for political purposes, Muslims in general will be seen as dangerous and the vicious circle where this leads to more recruitment of impressionable young Muslims as terrorists will continue!

I am given to understood that telling young men that Paradise awaits those who volunteer as suicide bombers is a lie and a perversion of Islamic laws. Yet it happens... Who is responsible for saying so? Catholics have the Pope...who among Muslims can authoritatively tell young men that is is NOT right and that they will NOT be rewarded?

That is my point...IN the areas where most terrorists are being recruited, moderates take risks speaking out. Something must happen to break this chain.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:26 PM

I am not allowed to directly address any posters. However I must point out that my last post was not for the purpose of addressing anything said by anyone who has responded to me since my 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM post. My last post addressed an inaccuracy in a post by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

I know it is confusing to people who read my posts and don't know which specific points I am addressing, but there is nothing I can do about that, so I would just ask people to keep in mind that when I post, I am not allowed to directly refer to any other posts, any other posters, or to quote any lines or passages from any other posts, and I would ask them to not assume that just because my posts may follow theirs in a thread, that this means I am responding to anything they have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:31 PM

LOL

I find the above two posts of mine highly ironic in a thread titled "Free speech, eh?"

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:55 PM

Worry about terrorists and religious extremists keep talk away from more serious threats.
Al Jazeera news website is running a cartoon strip titled "Nuclear is the New Nobel." This was inspired by Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureate, mentioning the number of nuclear arms in Israel's hands.

1. Carter: "Israel has 150 atomic bombs."
2. Ahmadinejad of Iran: "We'll try to achieve that target. Insha Allah!"
3. Kim Jong-il, North Korea: "Hey! Over here! We have more than that!"
4. Musharraf, Pakistan: "We have less, but more accurate!"
5. Smt. Pratibha Patil, India: "We'll not disclose the number, it's confidential."

Cartoon by Shujaat, Al Jazeera's gifted satirist cartoonist.

http://english.aljazeera.net/cartoons/2008/06/20086150581289784.html

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:59 PM

well...I was not aware of this. I did wonder why MY post sat for several days with no answer. I would be curious as to what precipitated it, since I have not been on a lot myself in the last month. In the past, several posters were ummm... 'curtailed' by management for exuberances of various sorts.

"Free speech" is indeed a slippery and debatable concept in many circumstances. Context and type of forum are considerations. I do know that I very often temper what *I* say in this world, lest I offend whoevertheheck could pounce on my gentle promulgations.

I dunno...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:07 PM

"I find the above two posts of mine highly ironic in a thread titled "Free speech, eh?"

Carol C. ..... very ironic !! LOL

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:07 PM

I have not noticed any decrease in the amount of exuberances in the Mudcat (or outright viciousness, either) since this rule was placed upon me, nor have the people who are doing these things been subjected to any restrictions on their postings, so I would tend to think that exuberances have nothing whatever to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:15 PM

Shujaat cartoons running at Al Jazeera-

Farewell, Hillary, hello Obama (same old?)
Nuclear is the new Nobel (I left off the UN response- take a look)
Sixty years of the Nabka (Sigh!)
Bush goes down with the ship (Troops wanting to go home)
Let the games begin (Chinese persecution of Tibetans)

http://english.aljazeera.net/CARTOONS/

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

CarolC- I often disagree with your opinions, and I think I have slammed you from time to time (and v. v.) but that is part of the game. Sorry that such nonsensical restrictions were put in place.

A couple of patrons here at mudcat can't be questioned without censorship being applied to the in(en)quirer, and you must have run afoul of one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:41 PM

I suspect that's probably the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:48 AM

Carol C ... being one who has agreed with you and disagreed, I must say your posts are (in the least) thought provoking ... so much so, I have (regarding many of the opinions I have disagreed with) come to see your point of view ... that's what good debates and arguments are all about.

The beauty of free speech, eh.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,HughM
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:05 AM

Getting back to what Chief Chaos wrote earlier:
Everybody's saying that there's nobody meaner
Than the little old lady from Pasadena,
She drives real fast and she drives real hard
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard....
   Perhap's someone didn't hear Jan and Dean's lyrics correctly and they thought she was the terrorist of Colorado Boulevard!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:27 AM

"I know it is confusing to people who read my posts and don't know which specific points I am addressing, but there is nothing I can do about that, so I would just ask people to keep in mind that when I post, I am not allowed to directly refer to any other posts, any other posters, or to quote any lines or passages from any other posts, and I would ask them to not assume that just because my posts may follow theirs in a thread, that this means I am responding to anything they have said."

Sounds like a case for the BC Human Rights Commission.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

In the USA we have effectively eliminated free speech

First the FCC (not elected but politically appointed) decided that free speech will not apply to Television and radio. They got a complaint from Donald Wildman, a evangelical preacher who complained about what he heard on TV.

Secondly Reagan eliminated the Fairness doctrine so networks like FOX will not have to have to be fair and balanced.

Of course you can't talk about something if the goverment says it is a secret.

The Supreme Court says it is OK to intentionally lie if you are a CEO, News Network or Goverment spokesperson.

You can still write however.

I am thinking of three authors who did unauthorized books on the Bush family and all three died of suicide.

Homeland Security goes where the FBI won;t tread and demands library records. When strong arming people deosn;t work sometines they back down.

Free speech is now something you have to fight for on an individual basis.

For now there is still the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 12:05 PM

I am not allowed to thank people directly in threads, but if I could, I would thank someone for their kind words in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

Hello there, Wacky, how is it on the other side of the grave? Long time no see in the news. (W. A. C. = Wacky, long time premier of British Columbia))

And that other Bennett, Bill, also from BC. He had to resign from the British Columbia cabinet (2007) after writing a profanity-laden email to a constituent.

I suggested this ditty from the TV show "Wyatt Earp" to Hillary, but now I offer it to CarolC-

Carol C, Carol C,
Brave, courageous and bold!
Long live her fame,
And long live her glory,
And long may her story be told.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:53 PM

Guest oll says, "The Human Rights Commissions in Canada have become a sick joke (as has the United Nations Human Rights Council), expect these kangaroo courts to have their powers reduced soon. "

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part, sunshine......

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Skivee
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:54 PM

Donuel, who are the three authors you cite who wrote unauthorized biographies of the Bush family and died of suicide (implicitely being killed by government agents to protect their evil overlords)?...details of their cases and the titles of their books, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:57 PM

Who controls Mudcat and why is CarolC muzzled? Is this not America where we have free speech? Why are other Mudcatters standing for such censorship?

This important poem says it all"

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

by Pastor Martin Niemoller

Well, I am not CarolC but I must speak out because if they can censor CarolC, they can censor me. If they censor me, they can censor you. If they can censor you, they can censor anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

well obviously Carol C isn't completely muzzled, if she was she'd be completely barred from Mudcat, besides other posters wouldn't be able to read her posts.

Q said, "And that other Bennett, Bill, also from BC. He had to resign from the British Columbia cabinet (2007) after writing a profanity-laden email to a constituent."

What a wonderful sounding family, great role models :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:45 PM

They can censor anyone they want to, because it's their site. The only serious quibble I have about this is that there seems to be two sets of rules... one set for a small number of people, and another set for the rest of us, and neither of them is the one posted in the FAQ. The actual rules (if you're one of the people covered by the second set of rules) you don't find out about until after you've already broken one of them. If you're one of the people covered by the first set of rules, the only rules seem to relate to how others are allowed to behave toward you, but there are no rules about how you may behave toward others. But it's their site, and if they want to have two sets of rules and keep them secret, that's their right.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:49 PM

So, CarolC, you agree that you should be treated as a second class citizen at Mudcat.

Now that's wacky.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:50 PM

I don't have to like it to understand that there's really nothing I can do about it.