Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to Annoygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
"Lady" "logic": A respondent to you last post indicated support of your annoyance here, citing your right to "freedom of speech".
There are abuses of freedom, as you have illustrated. This forum is to facilitate the expression of, and information by, those concerned with the issues surrounding the Y2K problem and its consequences.
You, and others, have been interfering with meaningful discussions, much as you would by lighting a cigar at the dinner table or purposefully 'breaking wind' in an elevator. Annoying and inappropriate behavior, though not illegal.
Go where you are appreciated and wanted.
-- TA (email@example.com), December 13, 1999
Well said. Thank you.
-- snooze button (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
Agreed!! Just delete her on sight and we can get back to business.
-- (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
this is wearing thin. Some people of the world do not want the hype about y2k (not founded in reality) to start a panic. Isn't that being concerned about the impact of y2k? Why should misinformation go unchallenged? Why are certain individuals being denied the right to post opposing viewpoints?
How come when old doomer quotes (and I do mean DOOMERS...not moderate pesimists) are quoted here (to expose their extremism) they get deleted? Why isn't there an outrage against this, if the majority of the forum DOESN'T want to be lumped in with extremists/cults?
Don't you want the idiot doomers to be OUTED so that you aren't viewed as extreme like they are?
Why get angry at the good news stories but jump all over the bad news ones?
-- hypocrites (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
You said "You, and others, have been interfering with meaningful discussions,...."
IMHO, the only way anyone can interfer in these discussions is if you allow them to. I am dismayed at the amount of responses this one person is able to solicit and the length of some of the topics that this person engages in.
The answer, of course, is simple. DON'T RESPOND TO ANY OF HER TOPICS, AND IF THIS PERSON MAKES COMMENTS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S TOPIC, JUST IGNOR AND DON'T RESPOND. Without any attention the person in question will eventually stop posting.
SHUN is the keyword here. Try it.....it will work I guarantee you.
-- LOON (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
Better yet, why don't we just delete everyone whose opinions diverge from our own? Let's make sure no good news is posted and all the spin from the government/media/business is excised. We KNOW they are ALL lying. We are the only ones who know and understand the truth of this gigantic conspiracy - Americans will thank us in the future for our clear, concise and practical response to these pollies.
Let's not mistake what we have here, history books of the future will refer to us as the Paul Reveres of the modern age. Let's not blow it!
-- Paul Revere (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
Where's DiETeR when we need him. Whatever he says would end this crap!
-- Gregg (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
Jeez, the pollys are really crawling out of the woodwork today.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
I would like to refer all you know it all mouthies, who have this need to run off at the mouth with no real contributions to anything but you, to the first paragraph above. It is very simple and accurite. If you have problems with all this leave. Stop breathing for all I care.
-- in referance (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
From: Philip Greenspun < firstname.lastname@example.org >
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:00:46 -0500
Subject: Re: greenspun.com and MIT associations
Your first amendment rights are protected at greenspun.com: you can set up your own forum at no charge. The existing forums are all moderated and if you don't like the way that they are moderated, please complain to the publisher (i.e., not me).
who does not monitor or censor the content at greenspun.com
-- (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
A lot of ignorance about "freedom of speech." The first Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "CONGRESS shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ORIGINAL AMMENDMENTS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE PEOPLE -- THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PEOPLE, OTHER THAN THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS A REQUIRMENT TO SIT IN OFFICE AND "GOVERN" THE PEOPLE.
The First Ammendment has NOTHING to do with what your boss says about what you can talk about at work, or the language you use. It has NOTHING to do with what the TB2000 sysops want to keep on or expunge from the forum. "Freedom of speech" is a handy term to throw around, but it is meaningless without a context.
No wonder this country is f*ed; only a tiny minority knows what it is about, and why it was (at one time) so very different from all the other governments in the world. 99% of you play into TPTB hands.
-- A (A@AisA.com), December 13, 1999.
I thoroughly agree with both of Jonathan's posts and hope that their imporant message is not lost here.
-- rw (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
I think there can be no question that this forum predominantly features bad news, and speculations and interpretations strongly biased toward serious impacts. Several posters here have seriously suggested preventing any opposing viewpoint from even being seen.
The result is without doubt a vicious spin on y2k matters generally. Those not so far gone in their fanaticism to retain at least a little perspective argue that this orientation is beneficial, since it encourages people to prepare, which is for their own good.
These same people espouse a remarkably violent hatred of the government and Koskinen, for clearly spinning y2k in the other direction. Of course, Koskinin is probably doing that for our own good, so his motivation is no different (and no more dishonest) than what is done here.
Those who retain some perspective might appreciate the irony in this -- that we're engaging in the very same propaganda we hate so much when others do it, and we're propagandizing for the same purpose, the difference being (of course) that *we* "get it" and have it right! Those lost in fanaticism, of course, can't be expected to appreciate much of anything.
If you really want to make a strong case for big problems, you should present as balanced a case as possible so you don't look blind. And you should be ashamed to associate with nitwits like Brett, who have a way of making thoughtful people look like fools through simple association.
-- Flint (email@example.com), December 13, 1999.
KOS Give it a rest, please?
-- # 3 (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 13, 1999.
Do you feel the polarization happened when the opposing fora galvanized their forces, or later when we had the changing of the guard?
I am serious. These are interesting times, and many share the same concerns - though we may not always agree.
I know you hate these kinda weird femme questions, but is it my imagination or have you redoubled your efforts here at the home stretch?
If you're up for the ultra-femme flora question, what would you do in my shoes with many loved ones in LA spun into somnambulance?
-- flora (***@__._), December 13, 1999.
Uh...what did KOS do that needs a rest?
Sorry, just curious and a bit confused.
-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-
-- Jonathan Latimer (email@example.com), December 14, 1999.
LOL... Jonathan! We have "common" ground... confusion.
(Thanks for the apology. Yes... it WAS "annoying." Non-truth always is. Peace. [And the deletion of trolls continues] *Grin*)
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 14, 1999.
Diane..Wiccans are closer to the truth than most. A of a of A .. A is for assholes. TA .. freedom is freedom. I break wind in your general direction. Our Constitution dictates that our government has no right to stop you from speaking your mind. Neither does any other asshole .. self included. Do I agree with you? Not particularly, but I will gladly lay down my life for your right to say what you feel is the truth. You are an American; red, yellow, black, white, poor, rich, intelligent, or stupid; it doesn't matter. That is the backbone and substance of America. We are blessed with the right to speak our peace, without (supposedly) the fear of reprisal. Does one have to listen? No. I can ignore Lady just as easily I can ignore you. Peace to you. Good luck at ground zero zero. Bear arms, or wear chains.
-- Willy (Wonka@thechocolatefactory.com), December 14, 1999.
This is an international forum. I'd be interested to hear how First Amendment applies to data transmitted outside the USA.
-- Servant (email@example.com), December 14, 1999.