[Preface -- The below retort to past, inflammatory threads, though written a while back, addresses a continuing problem which needs to be elaborated upon. Though originally about "religious" comments, the whole piece deals with this entire issue across the board; especially in light of the recent board sabotage. This is my opinion. As such, I do not represent anyone else although they might agree with me. I do not invite the same intentionally excluded rhetoric that this piece is attempting to extinguish. If a comment can't be presented in a proper, essentially respectful and appropriate way, then please don't say it here. Also be reverted to a previous post of mine, "TITLE: THE TRUE STATUS OF OIL & 'WHO ARE THESE DETRACTORS??'" at http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002NLe]

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

This is the same kind of unrepresentative conclusionism that attempts to associate every person who has some misgiving about the accuracy of information given by/ and intent of those who are in control of the media and governance, with "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Those volatile "Christian" statements, wherever they came from and whatever their aim (--which leaves much to suspect, provocateural speculation and are highly misrepresentative of Jesus' teachings and manner), have little to do with the decency of life or humanity any more than those who use them to flame the very fires of the inverse threats they claim to expose. Hateful rhetoric done in an intentionally malignant way is unilaterally unacceptable and has nothing to do with "free speech" any more than Hitler's "liberty" to his own ill-intended propaganda in an attempt to foment trouble under the guise of some so-called "inalienable right" by twisting the truth to suit ones own spiteful agenda.

Statements must be viewed based upon: the context they were presented in; the intent they were spoken in (not merely based upon words, but also the reputation of the user and if its meant to start a flame); self-interpreted age and maturity factors; "people speaking amongst themselves" applications; whether censors are badgered, and the operater of the forum himself; whether a comment was made in response as the result of instigation (i.e., in self-defense); stating an opinion as opposed to attacking an individual directly; the reasonable ability of sysops to judge such a huge influx of comments and statements based upon their knowledge of the situation and the posters involved; human nature which sometimes involves rash anger and impulsiveness as opposed to a steady, premeditated, if not pathological characteristic to postings; whether the statement has any bearing to the subject at hand or indiscriminantly mocks what others have said, etc.

I've posted this saying several times, but will say it again: THE DEGREE OF OPPOSITION IS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE TRUTH BEING TOLD. Not that I'm inviting opposition -- that's the whole point; in fact, let it be clear otherwise: that those who obviously prefer to instigate trouble are NOT invited to an otherwise civil forum of freely-thinking Americans who understand the difference between being able to express their opinions pro and con on a matter and finding it an affront and disgrace to have to be inferringly insulted, condemned and categorized for no good reason when merely stating their own opinion in a non-threatening, non-personalized way only to be attacked.

And the lame, counter-finger-pointing excuse of "'THEY' (the so-called 'doomers') do the same thing to 'US' (so-called Y2K 'debunkers')" should not be confused with the following facts: who can expect to barge in on a group of people with both barrels blasting under the pretext of "voicing their 'Constitutional' right to free speech" with the obvious intent to spark and fuel confrontation, and not expect some kind of severe repurcussion? The "you get what you ask for" analogy, though fitting and assumable, is hardly the correct analysis. Not only has it been asked for, it has been apparently expected and in a sense demanded, always resulting in outrageous disruption and taking "the eyes" of the converstion off of the issue at hand, making a mockery out of civil liberty, and is a disgrace to the very concept of freedom.

Why should anyone, anywhere, and under any pretext, be allowed to simply continuously and badgeringly disrupt what in essense is a place that they are no longer invited due to such repeated harrassment?; NOT on the basis that they shouldn't be allowed to "express their opinion", but that it must not be allowed to inhibit, disrupt or agitate the rights of all others with the similar "right" (God-given freedom). Those who have nothing constructive to offer after REPEATED, blatant postings which seem to, from the responses, do nothing but deceitfully detract (not "disagree"), and in the most contemptuous, disdaining and condemning way, need not be enabled to continue such a thing. Like in most cases of reprimand, perameters are established to justifyingly isolate those who repeatedly transgress common laws, courtesies, respect, and the rights, wishes and freedoms of others. Why should it be any different here?

This has LITTLE to do with free speech or suggesting that the lame, hollow-sounding cry of "CENSORSHIP!"/ "FOUL!" (or the fundamentally ambiguous, often intendedly-subversive issue of privitization) necessarily be allowed to dictate the closing of any forum to others or the all-too-often resorting to legal ramifications and threatenings as a result. In that case, the agitators, whoever they are and whomever they may frontedly "represent" (which seems to be becoming more and more obvious a probability if this is truly the case), will have won the last and only great battle which I feel this board is about in the first place: keeping the voice of the people and truth open for all to hear without the constant threat of not just rebuttal and a differing viewpoint, but of intimidation, personal insult and sarcasm and completely uncalled for and uninvited maligning.

Interesting (but not at all amusing) how in the last few decades TPTB have basically re-written Constitutional Law, void of historically assumed moral prerogatives that have long held them conscionable and valid, where the seeming and convoluted attempt to "protect" freedom has at the same time produced statutory Fools Gold; an antithetical, gleaming deception "where more is really less": the "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" theory of social engineering .

In my opinion, the intent of this badgering seems to be to either disrupt or shut down this board and silence a great free speech tool to and for the public, or to merely gavelgag the truth when its ephiphany leads to autonomous self-nirvana. This may indirectly or directly be the aim for whatever untraceable reason; especially when such meticulous anonymity and "conspicuous by absence" characteristics are defaultingly exhibited. This is the same "spirit", unlike the American Spirit, which has erodingly hacked away at staid Constitutional rights and time-honored principles and values in most every area. THIS is why this country and the world are in what many bright, educated and respectable, or not so adjudged, individuals consider to be the final death throes of freedom and the original concept of a Republic, more than any suppressed, belated and forthcoming Y2K threat could ever possibly still represent -- which, equally, is substantial.

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), February 18, 2000

Answers

My parents believed in the freedoms afforded us by our Constitution, if they believed in nothing else.

But one thing I remember clearly: My freedom ended where another's began.

These thoughtless people who harrass the Sysops with their computer expertise do not love freedom; they love anarchy. With freedom goes responsibility, and they have the responsibility to stop their harrassment.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), February 18, 2000.

What is THE RITE TO REMAIN SILENT?

-- (still@learning.english), February 18, 2000.

I believe it's another term for a Quaker Meeting.

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 18, 2000.

LOL Markus! Either that or a nun's novitiate ....

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 18, 2000.

A rite to REMAIN silent would have to be permanent, so I guess it has something to do with having your tongue amputated or in this case your fingers?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

Its got to be rite up there with the rite to remain coherent.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 18, 2000.

'unrepresentative conclusionism'? Is this a Trollism? 'counter-finger- pointing? Good one. Patrick you are clearly at the forefront of the New Age. Go boy go! I have never seen so many words used to say nothing. You take the prize.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 19, 2000.

RIGHT to remain silent; RIGHT to remain silent!

A RITE is a ceremony; a RIGHT is a privilege or a correctness.

We all make typos occasionally, which is what I think Patrick did.

Connie

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), February 19, 2000.

Ya really think so Connie? Darn, never would have figured that one out.

-- A (ton@n.chiek), February 19, 2000.

A tongue-in-cheek (or however you spelled it):

I felt that the sarcasm and put-down responses were uncalled for since everyone makes typos. Sorry if my expressing that offended you.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), February 19, 2000.

Everybody makes a spelling Mistake,occasionally.Even our Forefathers did.They mispelled "bear".It should have been:The Right to"bare"Arms.In other words"You have the Right to walk around in a short sleeved Shirt ANYTIME,You feel like it".Didn't know that,did yah???

-- History Buff (just@kiddn.com), February 19, 2000.

H.B. that would also include the right to carry unconcealed weapons.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 20, 2000.