WAEL final post - THANKS!!!

[Gord]

Quote from ratboy88:

by definition it is censorship.. go look it up.

So what. We are not discussing the dictionary definition. We are discussing censorship in context to free speech rights.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Gord:

So what. We are not discussing the dictionary definition. We are discussing censorship in context to free speech rights.

he never said we had a right to free speech on this board.. he said if you are american used to a democracy w/free speech you can not support this banning. there is something instilled in us that recoils at our speech being curtailed.. especially on a political forum.

no one is saying baron is not within his rights. we can say what we want on here and baron can tos us as he so desires. i can't believe you made me side with hapadork.

Quote from hapaboy:


This is a public internet chat board. If you're an American, you cannot in good faith believe in censorship like this. Heck, if you're a citizen of any supposed "Democratic" country that values free speech you cannot support this censorship.

 

[Gord]

Quote from ratboy88:

he never said we had a right to free speech on this board.

He equated free speech rights to make his point. His assumption was wrong. The correlation does not work. There are no free speech rights at ET. I am not going to argue semantics with you anymore - they are not the issue.

 

[slimpickingsfor]

The mods deleted all my post responding to Wael along with others that did not! That was not right at all!
ET management only cares about $$ coming in. $$ going out will be a concern as well. If they deleted my post all should have gone as well. But ET have no control over Wael, they are scared of him!

Slim:eek:

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Gord:

You attempted to link this to a "free speech" issue in a broader sense, appealing with, "If you're an American, you cannot in good faith believe in censorship like this. Heck, if you're a citizen of any supposed "Democratic" country that values free speech you cannot support this censorship."

What you don't seem to get is that a BB is not free speech - it is privileged speech. You are given the privilege to post on ET - you have no right to "free speech" in the context you put it. The example I gave of a letter to the editor of a newspaper is all the example that is needed, because the same principle applies broadly. Even though the NY Times invites you to participate in their publishing organization by writing in to the editor, you have no "free speech" right to be published in the NY Times. The same principle applies here at ET. The fact that the NY Times often publishes complete crackpot's letters does not in any way mean that other saner letter writers who are not published have been in any way denied their "free speech" rights, because they never had any to begin with.

Let's make it more personal. If you are at the park with your bullhorn and invite passerbys to use it, but only on the condition that you approve of what they will say, is it censorship if you refuse to let some nutjob like ratboy88 use it to proclaim that the Iraq war was a giant conspiracy of insiders who pulled the wool over the eyes of politicians, intel agencies and world leaders during the course of two different presidential administrations? Do "free speech" rights mean that you have an obligation to allow conspiracyboy88 to use your bull horn? Of course not. You can set your own conditions. You could demand that he name names and provide evidence for his assertions before allowing him to use your bullhorn. If he refused or was unable to because he is really just a blowhard who makes outlandish claims just to make himself look important, you would have every right to tell him to, "Get lost you little conspiracy twirp!"

I do not agree that letters to the editor or the bullhorn scenario approximate the situation at ET closely enough to validate your argument.

Very few letters to the editor are printed. Here on ET, everyone's posts are allowed. It is only AFTER they are posted that moderators or members complain and action is (or isn't) taken. It's essentially free speech. If all would-be posts were screened prior to them appearing, as letters to the editor are at the Times, I think you would have a valid point.

As for your bullhorn scenario, Baron is in effect letting everyone using his bullhorn. Again, it is only after they have said what they want to say that action may (or may not) be taken against them based on complaints from members and/or moderators who may or may not be biased themselves (see resinate).

Nevertheless, I understand your point, and I hope you get mine. It is getting to semantics, and I don't want to argue this further just for the sake of arguing.

Aloha,
H

 

[Gord]

Quote from hapaboy:

I do not agree that letters to the editor or the bullhorn scenario approximate the situation at ET closely enough to validate your argument.

Very few letters to the editor are printed. Here on ET, everyone's posts are allowed. It is only AFTER they are posted that moderators or members complain and action is (or isn't) taken. It's essentially free speech. If all would-be posts were screened prior to them appearing, as letters to the editor are at the Times, I think you would have a valid point.

As for your bullhorn scenario, Baron is in effect letting everyone using his bullhorn. Again, it is only after they have said what they want to say that action may (or may not) be taken against them based on complaints from members and/or moderators who may or may not be biased themselves (see resinate).

Nevertheless, I understand your point, and I hope you get mine. It is getting to semantics, and I don't want to argue this further just for the sake of arguing.

Aloha,
H

Fair enough - it was a fun discourse. Happy trading...

 

[Turok]

Well put hap -- I too have no use for Waels style (thought occasionally his substance has merit), but the banishment in light of other contributers here on ET was an error IMO.

JB

Quote from hapaboy:

Who are we kidding? WAEL will simply change his name and appear back here in another form.

I don't agree with his banishment, BTW. Was I sick of his endless threads and hysterical (meaning comical as well as rabid) defense of what, IMO, is indefensible? Absolutely.

But should he have been banned because of it? No.

If you're sick of WAEL, just put him on Ignore.

It's not hard. Really. I've got a pretty long Ignore list going.

This is a public internet chat board. If you're an American, you cannot in good faith believe in censorship like this. Heck, if you're a citizen of any supposed "Democratic" country that values free speech you cannot support this censorship.

It isn't exactly a secret that ZZZzzzzzzz and I are not the best of friends, nor Chucky Ells or Doc Vodka, for that matter. But do I think they should be banned? Hell no.

They say things all the time that I believe to be deeply offensive and/or incredibly stupid, but they have every right to say those things, just as I have every right to respond and/or put them on Ignore.

Might as well bring back resinate as a "moderator" if you believe in silencing criticism.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Gord:

Fair enough - it was a fun discourse. Happy trading...

Mahalo and good trading to you.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Turok:

Well put hap -- I too have no use for Waels style (thought occasionally his substance has merit), but the banishment in light of other contributers here on ET was an error IMO.

JB

Yeah, well, it's Baron's world, we just live in it. Fortunately for (most of) us he is tolerant of our occasional criticism!