BS: Free speech, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:43 PM

...Yeah, all that vegetation, beneath the sea, and the deserts, and in the mountains, and the natural gas is its farts....

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:22 PM

May I giggle along with you, lansing??

(ummmm...it wasn't dinosaurs, mr. sanity....it was the vegetation that some of them ate and wallowed in. At least learn what you 'think' you're objecting to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:07 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:06 PM

Abionic???..Naw, of course all the dinosaurs got together an one or two places, and turn into all that oil...Boy! There sure must have been scads upon scads, of them, who didn't decay like everything else does!!...Now, who is being silly????..The earth, 'makes' it, just as it 'makes' natural gas.
And as far as your 'reports' on how SUVs are doing all this,..yeah, take a boat, to the southern hemisphere, take temperature readings, coming up from the ocean floor, then you can return, and tow your boat home, in your electric car, and feel even more stupider...but at least you won't change your mind!!...Boy! They got you!!
And as far as the wading boots??..I have both boat a boat, and dive equipment, waders would be far more inefficient, like your propagandized 'logic'! ....other than that, Hey! you're ok...Love ya'

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

I refer to the 'guesses' folks make about why any editing or censorship was imposed on any particular member, or whether it was warranted or not. Since no one has offered details, I prefer not to speculate, but only to discuss generalities.

Ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:54 AM

BillD

so why not just wait & see and not make wild guesses about details you are not aware of

What wild guess would that be then? Or am i supposed to guess?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:56 AM

'rap & music incompatible'.......nice to find one bit there that I can agree with.

Oil is abionic? *tsk* ONE guy has promoted that fantasy...99% of those who agree with him are non-scientists who simply like the idea.

...and there is so much evidence that WE are exacerbating global warming and other environmental problems that you'd NEED an SUV to carry printed copies of the data. Believe what you wish....but buy wading boots while they're cheap.

As to 'free speech' on Mudcat and specific claims....as I said, let's wait and see how it plays out.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:30 AM

"Oil is abionic, (not fossil), global warming is not from SUVs, but a natural occurrence, 'rap' and 'music' should never be next to each other in the same sentence."

Wow! Homerun! You need to post more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:10 AM

"Women's rights was pushed by the Rockerfellers(David in the '60s) because approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the tax base could be increased"

Now that is interesting !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM

..and my previous post is just for starters!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:42 AM

'Freedom of speech'??..yeah, as long as it is 'politically correct'(choke choke), so they made you all the 'brain police'... AND on another thread I posted some poetry, and some 'kumbaya' hippie-come-lately-wannabee wants to steal it!! As far as 'politics' we really don't have ANYONE worth a poop running! Oil is abionic, (not fossil), global warming is not from SUVs, but a natural occurrence, 'rap' and 'music' should never be next to each other in the same sentence, America is in the shape it is now, because the weak people(you and me) let it happen, by being stupid, greedy, loose, permissive,, and 'they' were counting on it, and exploiting it, God is the giver of life, and if you don't like it, tough shit! Women's rights was pushed by the Rockerfellers(David in the '60s) because approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the tax base could be increased(suckers!), and your rights make a lonely companion, anyway, and it is not to be cofused with mental stability(it was a 'political movement')..and your kids are messed up because of it...what else?...hmmmm some jerk is going to want to argue with me, because the didn't do their homework, and want to champion some stupid notion, THAT THEY HEARD ON T.V.!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:21 AM

I think the lightening rod idea has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of people with controversial opinions who are targeted with a lot of personal abuse here, just as I am, who have not had their posting curtailed. There are also a few people who habitually abuse other posters here (which is against the rules, while having controversial opinions wasn't against the rules, last time I checked) who have not had their posting curtailed. So that idea just doesn't add up.

But like I said, the people who run the forum can treat people however they like here, since it's their forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

crazyhorse said: "...I don't understand carolC's statements about being unable to comment. I have nearly always disagreed with her but surely she's allowed to say what she wants to."

So far, I don't understand either. I DO know that for a long time, she said pretty much what she wished. As to Carol's remark about "selective enforcement" I offer this: when ANY poster becomes, as heric said, "a lightning rod for controversy.", some of their posts are inevitably more controversial than others. It is common for folks with "an ax to grind" to push the limits. Thus, any enforcement is necessarily "selective". When & how does a moderator decide that 'enough is enough'?

As I said....I do NOT know exactly what brought on this limitation on Carol's posts, nor do I know exactly how it was worded to her....and basically, it is none of my business unless one party or another chooses to inform me.
All I am doing is pointing out 'how things work' and why it is so difficult to 1)describe reasonable rules...and 2)to enforce them equitably & reasonably.

By & large, for a number of years, it has seemed to me that most folks were given a pretty LONG leash before anyone censured them...and on several occasions, I have seen decisions reversed and restrictions lifted.....so why not just wait & see and not make wild guesses about details you are not aware of?

Much too easy, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

I want the UN HRC closed down, yes, but the reason is they are anti human rights. Read up on the subject before you tell everyone how wide your experience is. As I've said, they were closed down once for their behaviour and they are doing the same again.


In addition; what KAofH said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:55 PM

Its my experience, which is quite wide, that those who don`t support human rights generally want any human rights commissions closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:42 PM

I do not agree with anything that carol has ever said, but I do not want her prevented from speaking, and do not understand the reasoning behind her gagging.
I complained a few times on the Bobby Sands thread about the behaviour of a guest.
He told lies about me and ignored my challeges to justify.
He never once challenged an argument , but called me names like bigot.
His guest posts against a member were allowed to stand, and now I read that a member is being restricted in her posts, which are never personal.
What is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:35 AM

My last post was in the hope that, after the person I'd like to send the message to sees it, he/she will log in to his/her account and see the message I sent him/her. It's tricky when one can't tell people things directly and one has to phrase things obliquely. There's lots of potential for confusion. But there it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:01 AM

PMs should be confidential to the members concerned- much personal information is given, addresses, etc. If not, I will stop using the PM.

Send the PM, if the intended recipient doesn't check, it should just die.

(Of course the government(s) evesdrop on everything, but that is beyond our, and Mudcat's, control)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

I'd like to send someone a PM, but I don't know if this person ever logs onto their membership or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:59 PM

I think you could beat the system. You could even, for example, just use my secret name (heric-O) or Bill's (D-O), etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

I'm having some difficulty seeing how a theory that I'm not allowed to directly reference could be the case. I'm still getting the same amount of personal abuse directed at me as I was before, more, actually (because it seems that some people only like to fight with people who aren't in a position to defend themselves), so I don't see in what way anything constitutes a compromise. Unless one can describe something that is entirely one-sided as 'compromise'.

It seems to me that people either consistently enforce their rules, or they don't. There's certainly no less fighting and bickering going on in the Mudcat between people who aren't me than there was before the rule was put in place, and those people aren't having any restrictions placed on their postings, so I don't think it has anything whatever to do with whether or not people are playing nice. I think Q probably has it right.

However, having said that, if the powers that be in the Mudcat want to selectively enforce their rules, or have one set of rules for some people and another for other people, that's their right.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:37 PM

I have been told that if I respond directly to any posters, or if I quote passages from their posts or copy paste them, I will be banned from the Mudcat. I was told this by the "head moderator". So no, I'm not allowed to say what I want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,oll
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:58 PM

Dear Def Shepherd, the Canadian government is already investigating the commissions and as for the UN HMC - it's already been closed down once what makes you think it won't happen again?

Sunshine

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

sycopants = psycho-pants? whatever I am outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,crazyhorse or shakey take your pick
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM

what the hell is going on here? I've only been on mudcat a couple of times in the last year or so; I don't understand carolC's statements about being unable to comment. I have nearly always disagreed with her but surely she's allowed to say what she wants to.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:18 PM

. . . I don't feel like working AND the unique retrictions placed [on Carol] suggest. . .

(I guess I'll go work.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:14 PM

crap oh crap I failed to sign my name just there - now subject to deletion depending on who's deleting this afternoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

Ramble on

Most if the time it's a judgment call and most of the time it's well made (IMHO). However, how often should a judgment call be "correct"? "Most of the time" doesn't cut it, because at 50% the level of judgment would be equal to a flip of a coin. What would be a perfect score in exercising judgement when there has to be room for legitimate differences? I don't know. That percentage less the true percentage would equal the amount of bias in the moderating.

I think it is guaranteed that there is some level of bias inherent in the process.

The bias could be issue basis or it could be bias against the personality. I can't think of any others.

'If you don't agree with me you're a complete idiot' is an extraordinarily common approach around here, as is the more simple "you're a complete idiot."

CarolC has endured an extraordinary level of "you're a complete idiot" thrown her way. Mostly it is because of bias against her positions on substantive issues. There's more, though, because she is a lightning rod for controversy. I have a guess, not much more than that, that the analogy is not "flies to honey," but something closer to enraged bees. That is, a cluster of them form around her on the issue, already agitated, then something about the exchange enrages them. My guess is that the aggravation arises because she will parse their words, unflinchingly, unfailingly and interminably.

I only mention this arcane theory because I don't feel like working the unique retrictions placed on her suggest that The Moderator may have come up with a similar theory.

So imagine you are Carol. You never, ever use the complete idiot allegation, yet you have been stifled, even after being called a complete idiot ad nauseum. Add to that the fact there are "beloved" posters who can pull that crap a lot, and, worse, the sad but unacnowledged truth t that there are sycopants around here, who also do that directly at her.

It's a tough one when you are a moderator who has to clean up the crap over and over and over again. But someone went through the trouble to craft a compromise for Carol.

Maybe just maybe I don't know but Carol maybe you should have altered (and still can) something in the technical approach, without compromising on substance.

Ramble off.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:31 PM

That's exactly it, freedom of speech to my mind is a free exchange of ideas, not the name calling and the 'if you don't agree with me you're a complete idiot' school of thought. Many have died, and many more will die defending the right to freedom of speech, but there are those who quite simply don't get that, and very likely never will. Sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

I guess that some of us truly understand that there are some personal freedoms that we are called upon to sacrifice so that things can function in a peaceful manner in which we can all coexist. Others believe that the only true order is anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:10 PM

Is this Let's all stop making sense day? There's another one. Hmm I wonder if...nooo..can't be. That would sound like a conspiracy theory. But then again anything's possible here.

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

Well I see the predilection for emoticons hasn't gone away.
Thanks for the mention in another place BTW, a friend drew my attention to it, really made my day!


G

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

and to use one of the most corrupt Candian politicians of all time as your role model; I mean what DOES that say about you, Sonny Jim? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:52 PM

Nearly 20 years in the military does have that affect on a person, but I'm not complaining! Orrf Orrf Orff! *clapping flippers*

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

whatever you say Bennett, just don't quote a truly great man out of context. There's a saying about the mediocre quoting the truly great, you, Bennett are the poster boy for that saying. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

oh, yep! And some of us can juggle 3-4 silly 'guests' at one time!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:46 PM

You guys really are a bunch of trained seals.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:44 PM

Perhaps we could learn from this quote the late great George Carlin, who said'

"A man has barricaded himself inside his house. However, he is not armed and nobody is paying any attention to him."

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:42 PM

(even Utah questioned authority with reason & direction. I have spoked to Utah. He did NOT advocate blind questioning of every rule in every situation)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

I've forgotten more about politics than you'll ever know, Bennett, and I know the smell of B.S and deliberate provocation, so give it up, and please, don't quote a man who did more for music just by getting out of bed in the morning, than you'll ever do in your whole life. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

Some of you sound like a bunch of brainwashed Moonies.

As the late great Utah Phillips said, "Question authority. Always question authority."

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

As I post a bit back, don't let people like GUEST,Wacky Bennett wind you up, you just never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:29 PM

Mudcat, in general, has very loose standards and largely open discussion on most topics. (I have been here since the beginning and can say this with authority.)
As in any forum, we occasionally get threads where tempers rise, issues get debated hotly, and name calling, bad language and personal attacks & threats are posted. In addition, a few folks have pressed certain points to excess, used excessive copy/pasting, signed 'guest' posts under various pseudonyms, and otherwise caused uproar & disputes that made life for moderators difficult as they tried to keep things flowing smoothly.
Obviously, rules had to be made, and some penalty had to be possible for those who, in the judgment OF the main moderator, broke those rules. I would suggest that folks like "wacky Bennett" take...oh...a few weeks, and read some of the history for the last 6-8 years before proclaiming what should be done or not done.

As even Carol C admits, this IS a privately owned site, and the management can apply the rules without appeal to the US Supreme Court.
This being said, I have watched this process for many years, and IT AIN'T EASY! Those who are censored, censured, blocked, admonished, edited, deleted..etc..almost never agree that they were guilty, and they USUALLY insist that 'things just as bad' were done by others who 'get by with it'.
It is all a matter of a judgment call.

As I said above, I frankly am not aware of why Carol C. has had these restrictions applied at this time...or even if she is accurately representing them. I do know that Carol has been at the center of some ongoing hotly contested debates for quite awhile....I have debated her myself on several.

(She could, of course...with no penalty, PM me if she wished, and explain the situation from HER point of view. I assume she does not feel it would help.)

So....there are 2 issues. 1) Whether Carol is being treated unfairly within the context of Mudcat's own rules, and 2) whether Mudcat should even attempt to model its own rules after public institutions like NBC or The New York Times...and by implication 2c) whether all those who think they know the answers without knowing all the history and specific details should offer their opinions.

(Boy it is hard work to write one of those while attempting to be fair & neutral!)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

CarolC is quite correct in her summary of the situation. To compare her plight to that of the African American community struggling for civil rights is comparing apples and oranges. This site is privately owned and operated and not goverened by any requirements for fair and equal treatment of any members. Aside from threatening to boycott any advertisers there is not a lot of leverage that could be employed to change the situation.

Although she and others might not like it, we are here at the suffrage of those that run the site. Without them there would be no site so occasionally they get to make rules that soe people won't like. If you don't like that, you are completely free to take your marbles and go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:33 PM

CarolC, never ever stop questioning :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Hackers and trolls, the bane of these forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:26 PM

Carol, if that be the case take a close look at what the Guest Wacky Bennett is doing, poking and prodding you, beware him/her

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:22 PM

I wonder if anyone would purposely try to get me to do something that would get me banned from posting in the forum entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:14 PM

"The Mudcat is privately owned and operated, and they can treat people however they like here."

If the African Americans who sat-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, NC in 1960 thought like you, America would still have legal segregation in businesses that are privately owned and operated.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:10 PM

The alternative to complying with the rule would be to be barred from posting. If that happened, I would be completely muzzled, wouldn't I? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. The Mudcat is privately owned and operated, and they can treat people however they like here.