REAL world event discussions by SignyM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Good point, perhaps we could have a SURreal World Event forum and invite PN to post there as much as he pleases. Or just move his threads there.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 26, 2009 3:29 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
John Lee: It would be nice if you limited your posts to real events, not paranoid delusions. Not that I expect you to- I'm sure the stuff in your head seems very real to you- but the first qualifier to this subforum starts with the word "real".

No response expected.

"Space aliens 'already exist on earth', Bulgarian govt has diplomatic relations"
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40971

If everyone stops talking to him the voices get quieter - why does no one else seem to understand this? He posts stupid sh*t and 20 people reply, "that's stupid sh*t!" That's mission accomplished for Inbred Views.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 26, 2009 4:20 PM

Can't say I agree.

In the matter of free speech, what's the difference between making PN go post on an alternate board or forbidding him from posting his crazy on here, versus making Democrat protestors go stand in barbed wire enclosed areas three miles from Bush?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 5:50 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
In the matter of free speech, what's the difference between making PN go post on an alternate board or forbidding him from posting his crazy on here, versus making Democrat protestors go stand in barbed wire enclosed areas three miles from Bush?

Well here's my view of it:

People should be free to voice protests and criticisms against their elected leaders - they should be free to set up their own media outlet with that very aim. What those people shouldn't be allowed to do is hijack another media that exists without that stated aim (like CNN for example), to broadcast their views more widely, forcing it in the faces of people who would otherwise have the freedom to snub those broadcasts altogether.

This as I see it, is what PN is doing.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 6:35 AM

You don't have the freedom to snub his broadcasts? So I guess whenever Lou Dobbs came on to CNN, you were forced to watch it?

How often do you ignore his threads and posts, have you ever been to his site or listened to his broadcasts?

You have plenty of choice still. Nothing is being shoved in your face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 6:46 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

It does bother me, sometimes, to log on here and see all 4 topics in RWE be threads started by PN.
Kinda like seeing all 12 topics in the fanfic category used up by a flood from one poster. And we have generally agreed that it's pretty rude to post more than 2 items in a row there.
But there, and here, there's always the " Last 100" list to choose from, and of course, always the option of starting a new thread or posting something yourself to bump him off...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 7:10 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I think Jon Stewart should hire PN as a correspondent. Some of his crap is as funny as anything The Daily Show comes up with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 8:12 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You don't have the freedom to snub his broadcasts?

Not 'altogether', as I said. The only way to ensure that would be to snub the whole fireflyfans site. Otherwise I *am* forced to encounter his tiresome and repulsive threads - I have to wade through them to get to the genuine RWED discussions (the purpose of a RWED forum).

"You have plenty of choice still"

The choice to stomach PN, or snub the site which doesn't effectively provide what many would come here for. It's the choice we all have, and I'll bet a lot of people, especially passing browsers, have opted for the latter.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 8:30 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Can't say I agree.

In the matter of free speech, what's the difference between making PN go post on an alternate board or forbidding him from posting his crazy on here, versus making Democrat protestors go stand in barbed wire enclosed areas three miles from Bush?

Who said anything about making him go elsewhere?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 8:38 AM

kpo did. He (or she?) suggested creating an entirely new, PN only board to keep him away from the RWED.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 8:39 AM

Quote:
The choice to stomach PN, or snub the site which doesn't effectively provide what many would come here for. It's the choice we all have, and I'll bet a lot of people, especially passing browsers, have opted for the latter.

That assumes people come here for RWED, and not Firefly. I suspect it's the opposite, and PN's presence on other parts of the board are minimal and easy to overlook.

Now, I can understand the complaints about the spam and the pushing threads off the main page. That is inconsiderate, and most of us go along with with a non-verbal, non-written agreement to give everyone their chance to be heard. That is a valid complaint, and in this way PN does impose on other people's freedom of speech.

But this thread was started initially to complain about the CONTENT of PN's thread, not the QUANTITY, so on principle I MUST disagree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 9:36 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

John Lee: It would be nice if you limited your posts to real events, not paranoid delusions. Not that I expect you to- I'm sure the stuff in your head seems very real to you- but the first qualifier to this subforum starts with the word "real".

No response expected.

"Space aliens 'already exist on earth', Bulgarian govt has diplomatic relations"
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40971

You do comprehend that article is verbatim from the elitist Daily Telegraph newspaper, located in London England?

File your complaint with them:
www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/about-us/3519232/Editorial.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 9:39 AM

Aaaand with the death threats.

Sometimes I regret defending PN. ._.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 10:55 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You don't have the freedom to snub his broadcasts? So I guess whenever Lou Dobbs came on to CNN, you were forced to watch it?

How often do you ignore his threads and posts, have you ever been to his site or listened to his broadcasts?

You have plenty of choice still. Nothing is being shoved in your face.

It very much is shoved in your face on his site. I visited his site a couple of times and although things might have changed (doubtful) there was a complete lack of any facility to post feedback or opinions of his site or its views. PN is just a mouthpiece spouting off what he happens to believe at the moment and when challenged his almost innevitable responce is a death threat of some kind (see above).
Unfortunately PN won his little war against us some time ago because although we all know that simply ignoring him would solve the problem we are just not able to resist the temptation to respond and every few weeks or months a whole thread becomes dedicated to discussions about and around PN.This then gives him exactly what he wants - attention, and afirms his belief in himself and the ridiculous things he says and thinks.
Personally, I've never understood why the moderators ofthis site have allowed him to post in the first place, particularly the disgusting anti-semitism and threats of violence,but hey,what do I know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 11:10 AM

Well, the reason is because we actually don't have any moderators, and despite the complaints against PN, people around here want a moderator even less. The risk is with a moderator is that someone will start playing favourites with the remaining people around here, which will result in banning and discrimination for whichever partisan group is opposite from the moderator's personal stances. My past experience has shown this is pretty much inevitable, and I think a lot of people here would even agree with me, that's the impression I get.

When I made the "not forced to read" argument, though, my point was that if you visit FFF.net, you don't have to visit PN's site. As such, except maybe for the quantity of PN's posts here, it's not "shoved in the face" here, because they can be ignored or even counter-points can be presented.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 12:55 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If everyone stops talking to him the voices get quieter - why does no one else seem to understand this? He posts stupid sh*t and 20 people reply, "that's stupid sh*t!" That's mission accomplished for Inbred Views.

That's how I feel and my question. I scroll past his responses and don't open his threads (as it's usually pretty easy to tell what they are, and when I make a mistake and open one, I just back out), and sometimes post in wonderment why the above.

But at the same time, I DO find it a pain in the neck when so many of his pieces of insanity muck up the thread list and I have to search among them to find anything REAL to read. I find it offensive...the other site I was on had one exactly like him, tho' since it didn't have the capability of posting videos, only links, one didn't have to see the offensive images when scrolling past. I wouldn't be caught dead responding to him (except once or twice in all the time I've been here), those are precious minutes I'd never get back again and like pissing into the wind.

I DO consider what he does as shoving it in my face:

Quote:
What those people shouldn't be allowed to do is hijack another media that exists without that stated aim, to broadcast their views more widely, forcing it in the faces of people who would otherwise have the freedom to snub those broadcasts altogether.

Quote:
PN is just a mouthpiece spouting off what he happens to believe at the moment and when challenged his almost innevitable responce is a death threat of some kind. Unfortunately PN won his little war against us some time ago because although we all know that simply ignoring him would solve the problem we are just not able to resist the temptation to respond.

I couldn't have said it better. There are some people who just should not be allowed to spread their filth on websites (and many don't allow it); that's NOT prohibiting his free speech--"speech" on a website owned by someone isn't free, it's "permitted".

Just as Prejean bitched about her free speech, when it came down to it, her speech wasn't "free" on Miss America and she could have been curtailed if they'd wanted to. PN's free to speak his piece on his own website; nobody has the "right" to free speech on anything but public property. If he wants to stand on a street corner and hold up placards to spew his vile crap, I can walk by and ignore him. Here, I'm forced to scroll past him and hunt up stuff that IS real.

Personally I am disgusted and offended by his viciousness and would LOVE to see everyone ignore him as much as I do, because I believe without the attention he would go away. I firmly believe that is the one and only reason he is HERE. I don't expect it will happen, tho', so it is how it is: a shame.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 1:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Okay, I want to split this one in two:

1. John has the freedom to post his opinions, and I can say that he easily posts more real world events than any other user, and while, sure, they're laced with opinion on a level that would make Glenn Beck drool, sorry Sig, can't say that you have a high portion of opinion free, real world event posts in your total score. Nothing personal, just saying, glass houses, throwing stones, that sort of thing.

So on point one, gotta side with John: He *does* post real world events and he *is* entitled to his own opinions.

As someone three times institutionalized myself, and long term guinea pig of the "mental health" establishment (see all advertising is a lie, if you have to say it in your name, it's a lie, ie, "department of defense," means "ministry of war.") But still, I had to become my own mental health expert in order to cure myself, but in such, I have to say something else, which is going to be double edged, so everyone duck:

John is not the craziest person here, not by a long shot. Okay, maybe he's not the sanest, but this means a couple of things:

First, let me say that I do not judge people by their level of sanity. People might be surprised by where I rank them, but I'm not going to share that information, just that John Lee is a relative sane individual.

However, and here comes the backhand, that means:

John, You are a relatively sane individual which means you are perfectly aware of what you are doing and that you *do* "at times" manipulate the format of the this "free society" to gain maximum exposure.

Sure, people who encourage this might be idiots, in just using your posts for a flame war... BUT

You post two high a number of threads. Can you please, as a favor to me, and the other members of the forum who actually do listen to what you have to say, keep the number of new threads down?

Yes, absolutely, if you have a new topic, and it's a real world event, or it's about the nature of conduct on the forum, post a new thread!

But a lot of times you post subjects that are already being discussed, either because you're not reading the threads, or because this will get you more traffic. It's minorly annoying. Try to limit it

Secondly, you often post 6 new threads at once. This is really annoying at times, because people are trying to follow threads that get burried. Combine them when logical, and post in as few new threads as possible.

Really, and I think this sincerely: It's not the *content* of threads that draws ire, it's the quantity. They at times reach a level that one might call "spam" and I undoubtedly have.

That said, I want to hear what you have to say. I also want to hear what other people have to say, and say some things myself

Finally, I think that like your stance against jews, your format of posting is injurious to your argument. If you want to oppose certain parts of Talmudic scripture, fine, it's easily attackable. So is the bible, which at some point contains a line that reads something like this "and so they went forth and killed all the men, their wives, and their children, and even down to their animals, and God saw this, and he said that it was good" okay, it's not an exact quote, but it's in either kings or Chronicles. If someone can't attack that, then there is no free speech.

But calling for the exterminiation of jewish people or culture is not free speech, since free speech has never covered incitement to criminal activity. I'm not calling you out on this because I think you intend to incite activity against jews, or should be barred from doing so, but in a purely self serving manner you should recognize that it does discredit your argument.

Furthermore, posting in a manner which constitutes the original definition of spam also discredits your argument.

So, yes, Sig has a half of a point, you should let others speak, you swing your arms to a point where the noses of others are just slightly swiped.

That said...

Sig, John has the other half of a point. It's free speech, and he has something to say. He might be the ranting preacher of doom on the corner, but at times he's the ranting preacher of doom that is heralding the real world disaster that the rest of us are ignoring.

Finally. This is a personal attack thread, and I thought we had agreed not to do this.

It would be much better if you could have addressed the topic of the overposting of new threads to already extant topics and threads that did not fit either the "real world" or "internal debate" model of thread.

Sure, every once in a while someone may post a thread consisting entirely of LolCatz, but that's once in a while, not overposting, not 6 a day.

But if the action is the subject of debate, then this thread fits within out self imposed selection "real world" or "internal debate" in that it is an internal debate about the process of posting. If it's a personal attack thread, then it has pre-emptively been voted down as a tactic in many many previous threads.

I think that this matter can be resolved civilly and to everyone's satisfaction.

John, carpet bombing *does* ultimately, discredit the attacker. You're a fighter pilot, you know this. This ain't a war that can be won through superior firepower, it's only through respect that you can get anyone to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 2:08 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
But this thread was started initially to complain about the CONTENT of PN's thread, not the QUANTITY

True, it's the content that really upsets people - but my complaint against PN is not that his posts are foul, but that I am forced to wade through them. The foulness just makes it worse.

So I am not complaining about 'content' or 'quantity' (there are other prodigous posters here in RWED that I have nothing against) of his threads, but the NATURE of them - which is propoganda/proselytising spam. I am genuinely quite happy for people to try to convert me to their views through reason and debate (even repugnant views) - but not through propoganda bombardment from an un-engagable spewing mouthpiece.

It is only PN that does it, and he does it to the extent of nuisance.

I think we can and should draw the line here, on the grounds that an internet (discussion) forum is not meant as a platform for a spam-spewing mouthpiece. Why have a Troll country but not a Spam country? Nobody complains about the free-speech infringements on the trolls - are spammers less annoying?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 2:41 PM

And the problem I see with this is the inevitable outcome. In order to make up for every post that gets moved to a hypothetical spam country, PN will have to post MORE.

Until either 1) he decides to leave (which he won't, and if you want to keep the moral high-ground here, instituting a change which will force someone to leave is... not that), or 2) the rest of US leave.

He has the energy and ability to keep up, I have no doubts about it. So I'd ask yourself which you think is worse, a PN who posts away with some inconvenience, or a PN who thinks his free speech is impinged and decides to go on the attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 2:54 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Steps to take, until the nuisance (including any 'fight back') is contained:

1) Move his threads to Spam Country
2) Disable his ability to post threads
3) Disable his account (ability to post at all)
4) Repeat steps 1-3, for any spam-account that appears in the future and reaches nuisance value.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 3:06 PM

...It's just making a bigger problem, though. The steps you outline seem to suggest that you want to wage some kind of war on PN, and that the point IS chasing PN away. There would be collateral damage, and I can't agree with the chasing away part.

I know that sounds hypocritical coming from me, because there was someone that I waged a war on myself here who I thought was a troll and now I'm not so sure about. But I am speaking from experience here. And compared to the person I was fighting with, PN isn't near as frustrating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 3:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Can't say I agree.

In the matter of free speech, what's the difference between making PN go post on an alternate board or forbidding him from posting his crazy on here, versus making Democrat protestors go stand in barbed wire enclosed areas three miles from Bush?

DINGDINGDINGDING! Byte for the win!

PN's tripe is generally pure garbage, but last time I checked, garbage has the right to be garbage. I'll ignore, I'll snark, I'll poke fun, but I won't censor.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 3:51 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The steps you outline seem to suggest that you want to wage some kind of war on PN

The steps are just a series of measures of blocking spam, they're nothing vindictive. And I think it's a sound approach to take towards any nuisance spammer (at the moment PN is the only one).

Quote:
the point IS chasing PN away

I'm quite happy for PN to stay, minus the spamming bombardment. It's up to PN whether he is. A compromise would be for PN to reduce his spamming to below nuisance levels, but I reckon it's his strategy (and maybe he thinks his 'right') to get in people's faces alot.

Quote:
there was someone that I waged a war on myself

I can't imagine you waging war on anyone Byte.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 5:00 PM

Well... all right, then, just so long as the intention isn't to single out any one user, because any of us could then become a target based on popularity.

I still would be very uneasy about your proposal because of what it might cause and mean, but I suppose it's up to Haken.

Quote:
I can't imagine you waging war on anyone Byte.

I think you've probably met KINGIECHOLS. He caught a lot of flak over his boastful, insulting posting style, but what pushed me over the edge was when he started complaining non-stop over his threads being moved to Troll County because of said boasting and insulting. So the two of us started a spam war against each other.

He stopped, but I've always felt ashamed over how I acted. I've since been mostly trying to leave King alone, but if he posts something good, I try to be nice to him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 7:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

BYTE

Quote:
Now, I can understand the complaints about the spam and the pushing threads off the main page. That is inconsiderate, and most of us go along with with a non-verbal, non-written agreement to give everyone their chance to be heard. That is a valid complaint, and in this way PN does impose on other people's freedom of speech.

Of course, PN is not alone in that, since I have felt the same way about certain other intolerant folk around here spewing hate at other cultures and beliefs, something I find every bit as offensive, at least PN is bonkers, what's their excuse ?

Quote:
Sometimes I regret defending PN.

You ain't alone in that either, but it's the price of free speech, PN, Fred Phelps, and the mighty-whitey-righties, alas.

Quote:
Well, the reason is because we actually don't have any moderators, and despite the complaints against PN, people around here want a moderator even less. The risk is with a moderator is that someone will start playing favourites with the remaining people around here, which will result in banning and discrimination for whichever partisan group is opposite from the moderator's personal stances. My past experience has shown this is pretty much inevitable, and I think a lot of people here would even agree with me, that's the impression I get.

When I made the "not forced to read" argument, though, my point was that if you visit FFF.net, you don't have to visit PN's site. As such, except maybe for the quantity of PN's posts here, it's not "shoved in the face" here, because they can be ignored or even counter-points can be presented.

Which, if worth discussing at all, some of the topics he raises can be discussed WHILE ignoring him, as has happened - or we could post kitties or recipies in the thread if it's otherwise "useless", which has also been done.

Dream

Quote:
John, carpet bombing *does* ultimately, discredit the attacker. You're a fighter pilot, you know this. This ain't a war that can be won through superior firepower, it's only through respect that you can get anyone to listen.

You presume that's what he wants - he ain't goin for respect, he's going for enragement, which depends muchly on your target audience.
The same way the mighty-whitey-righty types try to enrage and wind up the ignorant and weak willed against the enemy of the week, you know ?

On the other hand, I have suspected at least one of them, and most certainly PN, of false-flagging such a "message" in order to completely discredit it - think about it, you howl rage and hate against a culture or belief in someones face with a bullhorn, you're more likely to convince them that you and your message are completely despicable and encourage them to either dismiss it, or lash out against it.

Which is, perhaps, his goal - I might call him bonkers, but I ain't never called him stupid.

Although the actions of the mighty-whitey-righty crowd indirectly blind folk to some very real dangers presented by religious fanatics of any stripe, when they poison the whole argument with intolerant hate.

KPO

Quote:
It is only PN that does it, and he does it to the extent of nuisance.

If only that were true, KPO - I've come here a few times in the past month to see the top threads all containing intolerant hate, although that is comparatively rare, now.

But it didn't used to be, and I do remember that less than fondly, too, cause it drove off many of the original posters.

All in all, if PN is the price of free speech, that's damn cheap for it's value, leastways in my opinion.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 2:33 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

I honestly don't really care if he posts or not, it's easy to do an eye roll and ignore them as others suggest. He was entertaining back when I first saw them, good for WTF?! sensationalism, but it got stale pretty quick and now he seems kind of out of ideas and reposts a lot of stuff.

I think Signym's request is a good one.

Dream, please! PN does not really *discuss* real world events! Here's a sample of his last threads:

****************************

Pentagon wants Hunter Killer robots in ICBMs to start WW3

Nazi gay porn star Swarzenegger causes riots, raises college tuition 32%

Hackers leak email from 'Global Warming' scammers, Obama perps treason at Hopehagen

Space aliens 'already exist on earth', Bulgarian govt has diplomatic relations

Merck brags Vioxx killed more people than Americans killed in the Vietnam War

Crazy Muslim ampatuans carry out huge Bloodbath in Philippines? worldmedia afraid to mention phrase 'muslim extremists'

Britain Sux: Cops arrest blokes 'just for the DNA'

Britain Sux: Soldiers in Iraq only given 5 bullets, no body armor

Scotland Yard says Obama is not the president

Bill O'Reilly's Crotch: 'I don't care about the Constitution'

Fascist pig cops taser 10-yr-old- girl for refusing shower in her own home

Worried pimp called off Rabbi's three-day coke orgy

Obama orders US troops to protect opium fields, wants new tax to pay Taliban in gold to attack US troops

Attack from outer space 'lit up the whole freakin neighborhood'

Mack Daddy sends CIA and NYPD to arrest Paster Manning re Obama's lack of birth certificate

Ron Paul aide forces TSA Nazis to back off at airports

Britain Sux: Soldier gets 5 years prison for finding gun in his yard

****************************

Those look familiar? The person who called them spam was absolutely right. It is definitely NOT a Free Speech issue. Should spammers be able to send you spam?

In the end it's Haken's board and he's nice enough to let us play here.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The issue here isn't free speech. It's technology.

A good forum software would allow you to flag people who don't interest you, and it would conceal all of their threads and posts from your view, thus ending the distraction.

It would also prevent subject line changes.

If we really really cared about PN, we could take up a collection for Haken so that he could upgrade to programmable-filter forum technology.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 5:09 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

I think Anthony has hit the nail on the head. If there were a reliable way of flagging PN (or others) posts it would enable us to simply steer round him and make ignoring him so much easier.
I think this has been a very good thread with some very engaging comments from all sides. It's certainly caused me to go away and think about how I view the whole issue. I will try one more time to ignore PN's threads, although I cant guarantee the level of success.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 5:15 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

The issue is content vs quantity. 90 % of his stuff is gose , some of it is hateful, some of it is incitement to criminal behavior

But he's got a free- speech right.

And I can just plain skip his threads-- I usually do. So Haken shouldn't ban him, nor restrict his right to post or start new threads.

Problem comes when he starts 4 threads the same day, and pushes other topics or viewpoints off the RWED list and onto " Top 100"-- that's rude.

Dunno, maybe Haken could implement a policy of only 1 thread a day in RWED? Probably a software or patch somewhere that could do that, for all users, not just PN. And I dunno if even that is a restriction I'd want to see on a political speech board-- some political junkie ( like me, fer instance...) might find 2 different topics in the news the same day that deserved posting and discussion.

A while back , somebody proposed adding "Not PN" to thread titles that were wacky-sounding. Maybe we all need to do that. And if we could get PN to head his with " PN sez--" or something, it'd be pretty close to a better world...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 6:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Sig, can't say that you have a high portion of opinion free, real world event posts in your total score. Nothing personal, just saying, glass houses, throwing stones, that sort of thing... John is not the craziest person here, not by a long shot. Okay, maybe he's not the sanest, but this means a couple of things... People might be surprised by where I rank them, but I'm not going to share that information, just that John Lee is a relative sane individual.

I also have my list of who's sane(r) and who's not, and who is more opinion-free and who's not. And I suspect we ALL have lists like that in our heads. ETA: But I'd be curious as to what your list looks like. Care to share?

Also, you seem to have developed a grotch against me for no reason that I can tell, sideswiping me in various threads that I haven't even posted in, name-calling etc. Why is that?

JOHN LEE
Saying "It's in the Telegraph" does not absolve YOU of the responsibility of sifting the dreck from the real. Hell, man, I saw an article about a mink coat which came to life, bit its owner to death and ran away. (Word!) But I'm not gonna post it as "Secret Jewish-Nazi-British zombie experiment run amok in Budapest". If you depend on your "sources" to sift the real from the unreal, don't you realize that you have just given "them" the power? For your own safety, try to keep at least one foot in the real, real world. Retain that power for yourself, m'kay?

ALL
I suspect that PN is using this site as an alternate "news outlet", possibly to get around being blocked by other outlets. I believe he is abusing the intent of the forum. Nonetheless, I don't think he should be banned or even shifted off to the malicious thread. I WOULD like his posts be tagged though, so that I can scroll past them instead of having to open some of them up to see who originated it or - WORSE, IMO - scanning past other posts because they "sound" like PN. A little organization can get us past his forum abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I suspect that PN is using this site as an alternate "news outlet", possibly to get around being blocked by other outlets. I believe he is abusing the intent of the forum. Nonetheless, I don't think he should be banned or even shifted off to the malicious thread. I WOULD like his posts be tagged though, so that I can scroll past them instead of having to open some of them up to see who originated it

On the nose, as far as I'm concerned. And the idea that he offers much "real world" material is almost as funny as the concept that he WANTS to "discuss" anything he puts up.

And I LOVE Anthony's idea:

Quote:
A good forum software would allow you to flag people who don't interest you, and it would conceal all of their threads and posts from your view, thus ending the distraction.

The other forum I was on did that, and made it SO much easier; my only problem was the delight in some I had blocked in going after me, so I would read someone else's response and curiosity would get the better of me, which always turned out badly...that's on me, nobody else.

The software there didn't hide the THREADS, tho', only the posts, so it doesn't change his spamming the list with sometimes MANY (4?!?!?) threads in one day and knocking everything else down. But it solves half the problem, and since his threads are pretty easy to spot, and/or back out of if I don't realize they're him, that would be a GREAT idea!

Anyone tell me where to send Haken the contribution, I'm in!

I repeat, just for the sake of argument, however, that "legally" speech isn't "free" here because it is a privately-owned site. Many sites block "forbidden" words, and a large percentage of what PN posts would be blocked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:00 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

I take your point that PN may be going for anger, I know that the US bombing has chaos as its goal, rather than conquest.

That said, I don't buy PN as a jewish mole. I've seen this done before, but only within the neonazi set. John ties zionists to the Nazis, and even if he makes errors in doing so, he is not entirely wrong. This is a secret that a jewish elite would *not* want to spill, even in the process of trying to discredit a message.

It's possible tho.

Pizmo,

I never said that he "discussed" real world events, only that he posts them. He discusses very little. He carpetbombs. The initial posts are often real world events. Sure, he posts a lot of pure opinion threads, but as I said, he fires a lot, so he's bound to hit something. He posts more real world events than most of us, maybe than anyone, even if it's not more by % of posts.

And no, he doesn't discuss them, in general. Occasionally he does

SignyM

I concur, I just don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand. It's not a question of whether a poster is bonkers, politically slanted, or opinionated, but whether or not they post real world events vs. opinion.

Pirate News posts a lot of real world events, and yes, he also posts a lot of opinion. But I don't see a lot of fire here coming from people who post significantly more real world events, and a lot of people here post a lot of opinion. Whether or not that opinion is more cogent was not the issue at hand. It was just a matter of posting real world events.

If you disagree with John's opinions, you're probably close to a unanimous majority. Myself, I avoid major disagreements altogether, and only nitpick whether or not Moloch is an owl, etc. In short, factual disagreements. I'm not going to debate the validity of the state of Israel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Gotta take issue, here, Pizmo.

Some of those, despite his ludicrous titles, were actually quite worthy of discussion, particular the cop tasering that kid, and the TSA being forced to back off - sometimes folk around here are a little too quick to dismiss the message cause of the messenger.

I don't blame em too much, but Sturgeons law does have that ten percent, yanno.

Anthony ?

I already use software that allows such a blacklist, but I question the utility of incorporating it into the forum itself - not just because of the technical difficulty, but because some folk wanna bang their little drums without ever hearing a word of dissent, and that would allow them to ensure it, which would not only cripple discussion, but would actually ENCOURAGE them to spout off their intolerant hate, because they'd not be forced to deal with us mocking it and picking it apart.

That's one of those things that only sounds like a good idea till you think it all the way through.

That's *almost* as bad as the hate-friendly "moderation" on certain boards ( THR comes to mind ) which not only allows such things to fester, but actively bans calling folk out on it.

Yeah, I got banned offa THR for calling out someone who was advocating the death of all muslims, pointing out that he was essentially calling for genocide, and suggesting that helping them throw out their own radicals was a better idea - and the mod in question took MORE issue with that than he did for the genocide comment...

I did find amusement that their server admin, who was arabic and muslim in descent, pulled a fast on one them when they tried some funny business with potential financial support from some hard-right wackjobs, although he was no more innocent of anything than they were, not even Oleg - given that was the first time I've ever known him to lie to me.

Trust me, Anthony - incorporating the ability to blacklist anyone who disagrees with you would kill the value of this forum pretty quick.

Not that I am unsympathetic to peoples "issues" with the guy, but I kinda like our pet crazy even when he does get on our nerves - and just can't stomach the idea of pushin him out the airlock, yanno ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't think the comparison between being able to "block" offensive people if one chooses to and having a mod is accurate. I see a HUGE difference.

As to

Quote:
some folk wanna bang their little drums without ever hearing a word of dissent

those people go right on banging their drums whether they get dissent or not. Conversely, if they were blocked, fewer people would reply and they wouldn't get the attention they seek. PN being a prime example. Wouldn't stop them, but it would help in keeping their threads from rising to the top as much, and give those of us who would like it more peace.

I love a good discussion/debate, and could jump into one after it began if it was about something worthwhile, yet still not deal with the uglier parts. People like PN DO only want to bang their drum and spend hours posting long diatribes, complete with videos. Blocked by each individual who doesn't want to deal with it would reduce their posts to one line, which would be nice, in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT: There are several parts to the Real World Events Discussion header. One is that the events posted are in the real world. The other is that they're posted for discussion. John's posts are (by percentage) neither real, nor is he open to discussing them.

Quote:
.. only nitpick whether or not Moloch is an owl, etc. In short, factual disagreements.

I can see discussing whether Moloch is normally represented as an owl although it seems a pointless topic. But isn't discussing whether Moloch "is" an owl like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Unless you accept the actuality of Moloch (or angels) it hardly seems factual. I think what you're saying is that you're not going to challenge people's basic vision of reality, but work within it. ETA: But that defeats the purpose of the forum. If PN is here to challenge our view of reality then we can challenge his.

I understand "insanity" is a dangerous political concept. What most of us consider as "reality" is often what is "socially acceptable"- what we are TOLD is real by our parents, teachers, businesses, and government. It's far too easy to label rebellion or paradigm-challenging insight as insane. Freud labeled HIS patients insane when they recalled childhood abuse, and came up with a twisted theory about the psyche to explain away the inconvenient fact that proper, middle-class parents were abusive monsters. Today, people are called "depressed" when they respond very naturally to their powerlessness in our current dystopia, and handed little pills to bring them back to the unrealistic optimism which is considered "normal" in this fucked-up society.

Also, we have this trope (trope, right?) of the insane who is really wise, who sees things that most people don't. Maybe there's some truth in that... maybe it takes a touch of "insanity" to reject the paradigms we're so immersed in we can't see any differently.

Which is why I don't want PN banned from the forum, simply labeled. That way, we could do what we normally do in face-to-face life: We could identify right away who was talking without having to listen to them first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig: Ooo, well spoken...I agree with every word. And right on with

Quote:
John's posts are (by percentage) neither real, nor is he open to discussing them.

, which is the point several of us have been trying to make, but not nearly as cogently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 10:07 AM

Quote:
Also, we have this trope (trope, right?) of the insane who is really wise, who sees things that most people don't. Maybe there's some truth in that... maybe it takes a touch of "insanity" to reject the paradigms we're so immersed in we can't see any differently.

Hmm, if you're asking, it could be a few tropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CassandraTruth

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadOracle

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AgentMulder

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouHaveToBelieveMe

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CryingWolf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 10:45 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think people misunderstand the concept of 'free speech'. It's NOT a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, however you want. I cannot punch you in the face and claim it is my 'free expression' of what I think of you.

This is what's in the constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

YOUR free speech rights go only as far as lack of federal law abridging them. Any other abridgement by any other entity is fair game. That is, at least, according to the 'strict constitutionalists' who are the current Supreme Court majority.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Also, we have this trope (trope, right?) of the insane who is really wise, who sees things that most people don't. Maybe there's some truth in that... maybe it takes a touch of "insanity" to reject the paradigms we're so immersed in we can't see any differently.

Hmm, if you're asking, it could be a few tropes

Actually (the DB is down right now..) it would be CloudCuckooLander and The CloudCuckooLander was right.

Which is all the more amusing since technically imma loon as well and my original monniker was C-6/Cuckoobird.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RUE: I'm with George Carlin on this one. There ARE no "rights"... at least not "god-given", "natural" or "inalienable". They're the flip side of "obligations".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Trust me, Anthony - incorporating the ability to blacklist anyone who disagrees with you would kill the value of this forum pretty quick."

Hello,

I don't think so, Frem. If people on this forum weren't open to disagreement, they'd move to a forum populated exclusively by people who agreed with them. Such places do exist, for any community of like-minded souls.

I find that people on this forum are generally open to having a good discussion and even a civil argument on a variety of issues. In fact, most people here actually look forward to such things.

What they don't like is loony tunes behavior or conversation that is all expletives and no content.

Moreover, anyone who does want nothing more than unopposed drum banging would be happily isolated in their own little universe... which is where they live anyhow.

Programmable filters are the epitome of something rarely discussed. Free speech is often brought up. The freedom to choose who to listen to isn't. In the past, the best we can do is put ear plugs on or play a song in our walkman. But the world of modern technology now lets us fast forward through commercials, and even pre-select the sort of material we want to watch later on.

That's Freedom, baby, and no Anarchist is gonna talk me out of it being a good thing. ;-)

(That was a bit of a humorous irony, since I assume anarchists are actually in favor of more choice, and less of being a forced audience.)

People often discuss the wonderful things Piratenews does in bringing things to the attention of people here. What they fail to realize is that in the absence of Piratenews, other more reasonable people would be talking about tasering kids and etc. It was on my list of things to investigate already when Piratenews posted it here. I mean, the bloody thing was on CNN.

Not to mention that Piratenews is such an effective Man In Black that anything he posts is almost instantly dismissed by the vast majority. Which is a disservice to the limited amount of valid news he does bring here.

If I could filter here, I could happily read the same information he posts, but instead posted by someone reasonable in a new thread, sans Nazis or Jews or any of his usual nonsense.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:21 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I cannot punch you in the face and claim it is my 'free expression' of what I think of you."

Hello,

I don't think face punching is a remotely valid allegory to free speech.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, people have made all sorts of links between 'free speech' (one presumes actual verbal speech) and non-verbal 'freedom of expression' like, say, flag burning, visual art, letters and other non-press written text etc.

I'm just trying to reiterate a point - there is a line that was drawn, is drawn, and will always be drawn when it comes to free speech. Our free speech is to some extent an oxymoron - we have permitted free speech. And then there is speech which is not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Generally that line has been drawn at speech which incites immediate verifiable harm to other human beings or their property. That's a narrow focus of limited behavior.

The exception has lamentably sometimes involved nudity, which I don't agree with. In other countries, Free Speech has been abridged so horribly that merely advocating a certain belief system is not permitted. That is just horrible.

And of course Free Speech guarantees only protect you in areas controlled by the government. They will do little to protect you at my dining room table, where insulting my wife will find you expelled from the premises.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Generally that line has been drawn at speech which incites immediate verifiable harm to other human beings or their property. That's a narrow focus of limited behavior."

Well, there is also slander and libel. There is criticizing a company or product (beef). There is discussing information which a company claims is proprietary (it doesn't have to be). There is the NSA monitoring phone calls with context-sensitive software. (WHAT ??! They're not keeping you from saying anything, are they ?) There is criticizing your boss - even on-line, even if not by name. Even if it's true.

There are so MANY restrictions on free speech, large and small. And they go far beyond the 'immediate verifiable harm' condition.

Please note I'm not supporting these restrictions. (I feel I have to bold this b/c I guarantee someone - cough frem - will claim I'm a jackboot.) I'm just pointing out that 'free speech' is not what people seem to think it is. And I'm hoping for a little bit more accuracy in the arguments.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 12:19 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sig

John may have had mental health issues due to Gulf War syndrome in the past, but he is far from the craziest among us.

Moloch *does* exist, and that's important. If you take the position of "God doesn't exist" than you are left with a terrible conundrum trying to explain the existence of religion.

Unless you're going to argue that Judaism doesn't exist.

Gods exist because they have believers. People believe in Moloch. John believes in Moloch. Whether or not there are people who believe in Moloch and choose to follow him is up to debate. I suspect there probably are, but that their power, influence and numbers are exaggerated by judeo-christians (to differentiate from strict new-testament or 1st c. style christians, to whom Moloch/Molech is not an issue.)

But banning users and having a mod amounts to the same thing: A limit on free speech. I vote against it. I'm in the overwhelming majority here.

Nik,

I concur with Frem above, not much else to say.

Kathy,

This is not about law or the constitution. The forum has its own rules. I had a long discussion with Haken over this very point and he made it very clear that unless a user was a liability to the site, a legal or financial liability, or otherwise costing a large number of users, then there were no limits on speech. He made it quite clear that nothing posted by Pirate News or River6213 in his opinion was outside of the spectrum of the Forum TOS. And he had reviewed posts before making that decision, and so he saw everything we saw, and said that said users were perfectly in their rights, etc.

Since this is Haken's page, and he made the point perfectly clear, I felt there was nothing more to discuss. I get flack for defending above mentioned users, but I am sticking to my guns.

Besides...

Why are we still talking about what's already been decided?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 12:34 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Gotta take issue, here, Pizmo.

Some of those, despite his ludicrous titles, were actually quite worthy of discussion, particular the cop tasering that kid, and the TSA being forced to back off - sometimes folk around here are a little too quick to dismiss the message cause of the messenger.

Frem - I hear you but as you suggest, I'm not going to wade through his posts to get to any so called *facts* since in my experience he doesn't really bring any. I wouldn't trust his *facts* anyway - would you?
True, he uses current events to construct his threads, but so do spammers.

47 posts into the thread, lots of people have weighed in with some good insights. A good discussion on Freedoms and Rules and Banning but nothing from Pirate News.

I'd kind of like to hear from him instead of us all talking about him in third person.

How about it John Lee/Pirate News - how's this sittin' with you? You have an equal share here - no one wants to talk for you.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 12:56 PM