Jeebus is banned?

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Yoozer Okay, I'm pretty tired of these underhanded accusations.

 

 

A very nice rant, but my quote above it,

 

"Originally posted by droolmaster0

Well, it puts a spin on it which presupposes that the person did something wrong",

 

was not an 'accusation', and the notion that it was 'underhanded' is pretty silly.

 

That quote was in direct response to your statement that Jeebus had 'screwed up'. The degree of direct responsibility that you may have had towards his banning had nothing at all to do with it.

 

So, please - if we're going to get into accusations of accusation, please watch your own.

[Yoozer]

You imply that I'm talking propaganda. You also imply that I'm bending the truth with regard to Jeebus. Since you imply and not outright claim, I don't know how I have to view them otherwise.

Perhaps I lack the correct descriptive term.

[sizzlemeister]

Originally posted by Yoozer You imply that I'm talking propaganda. You also imply that I'm bending the truth with regard to Jeebus. Since you imply and not outright claim, I don't know how I have to view them otherwise. Perhaps I lack the correct descriptive term.

Either that or you just aren't educated enough to appreciate the nuance.

You have to love the calls of "maybe DB will respond to this..." when he ALREADY HAS! Talk about not having the full picture in mind before spouting off. DB went out of his way to reinstate Chris100 and had nothing to do with his banning shortly afterwards. You're barking up the wrong tree. None of the moderators should be compelled to respond in the first place. It's not like we are paying for a service here.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Yoozer You imply that I'm talking propaganda. You also imply that I'm bending the truth with regard to Jeebus. Since you imply and not outright claim, I don't know how I have to view them otherwise. Perhaps I lack the correct descriptive term.

 

 

I explicitly stated the point that I was trying to make. Any inferences beyond that are your own.

 

If you don't start out with the presupposition that Jeebus did something wrong, you don't claim that he "screwed up". If you weren't so defensive about this, you'd see that extremely obvious point.

 

 

And to address another point that I forgot to address in my previous post - that's another nice spin to imply that moving a post to a location where members can't read it can't be censorship because the post still exists. I don't think that there is any requirement that the post be destroyed for it to be censorship. I think that generally, censors may still have access to the material that they deem might corrupt the masses.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by Fear My Potato I have had no problem with SB in the past, but if he thinks he's gonna whip his dick out in my thread and take a piss on it because he's personally tired of hearing about a certain issue, he can expect me to be personally tired of him...end of story. If he doesn't want to read this thread, he doesn't have to, and if his purpose is to keep stuff like this off the front page, why the hell is he bumping it? It was just intented to stir up trouble, which is what he got.

Take a piss on your thread??? That wasn't me, I went before we left the house.

Perhaps all of those carbs are making you a little over sensitive, hmmm? ...or at least humor impaired?


How much extra is it to substitute onion rings for fries?

Let's not fear the potato, but instead enjoy it with moderation.

Unless you have a problem with moderators...


p.s. I think you meant "intended".

[Yoozer]

Originally posted by droolmaster0 And to address another point that I forgot to address in my previous post - that's another nice spin to imply that moving a post to a location where members can't read it can't be censorship because the post still exists.

 

Stuff can always be moved back. Not so if it is destroyed. 404

[wetwareinterface]

Originally posted by sizzlemeister None of the moderators should be compelled to respond in the first place. It's not like we are paying for a service here.

 

 

last i checked we are paying. see that conspicuous banner ad at the top?

we are paying.

[Chao]

Originally posted by Birdienumnum Yer right! I'm no businessman, that's fer sure...but still, the point is, both GC & Sweetwater share the same goal: to sell you the highest priced keyboard possible.

I usually find something insightful in your statements (whether I agree with them or not ), but the possibility of them colluding on something so banal is laughable at best.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Yoozer Stuff can always be moved back. Not so if it is destroyed. 404

[Chao]

Originally posted by droolmaster0 The fact that you can move a post back doesn't mean that 'hiding' it from members is not censorship. The fact that it isn't destroyed doesn't mean that it isn't censorship. It IS censorship. If you move the post back, then the post was censored for the time that it was hidden from view. If Jeebus is banned because of the post, then that is a form of censorship.

Semantics. All moderation and rules are "censorship" of some form or other, and they are not in and of itself evil.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Chao Semantics. All moderation and rules are "censorship" of some form or other, and they are not in and of itself evil.

 

 

Good for you. Where did I state that censorship is always evil?

 

I was pointing out how the incident was being spun. Everything is 'semantics', but words DO have meaning, or do you not think that their meanings are important?

[Geoff Grace]

Since this thread is already all over the place, I hope no one will mind if I point out that "Jeebus is banned" and "Jeebus's band" sound the same.

So, if anyone here decides to write lyrics about this topic, please keep the above in mind.

Thank you.

Best,

Geoff

[sizzlemeister]

"Spin" and "censorship" as they're being used here imply some sort of corrupt behavior.

Since you're saying Yoozer is "spinning" this issue then you are saying he is not providing a factual representation. In other words, you're suggesting by using the word "spin" he is being less than truthful, which for a lot folks is just this side of lying.

If censorship is not always "evil" then why keep crying about it? Or, if the censorship in this case were "good" then why keep trying to point out the OBVIOUS?

Let's not play games anymore - unless you have explicitly said otherwise, and I have not read that you have, despite your denials, arguments over linguistic nuance and semantical acrobatics your fundamental argument is that the banning was unnecessary, the moderators have an authoritarian complex, and the forum itself is going to hell in a hand-basket.

We get it, thanks. This is nothing more than drama for drama's sake and is quickly becoming OASYS II in terms of a redundant, overly-dramatized, acutely obsessive, and, ultimately, annoying topic of discussion.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by sizzlemeister "Spin" and "censorship" as they're being used here imply some sort of corrupt behavior. Since you're saying Yoozer is "spinning" this issue then you are saying he is not providing a factual representation. In other words, you're suggesting by using the word "spin" he is being less than truthful, which for a lot folks is just this side of lying. If censorship is not always "evil" then why keep crying about it? Or, if the censorship in this case were "good" then why keep trying to point out the OBVIOUS? Let's not play games anymore - unless you have explicitly said otherwise, and I have not read that you have, despite your denials, arguments over linguistic nuance and semantical acrobatics your fundamental argument is that the banning was unnecessary, the moderators have an authoritarian complex, and the forum itself is going to hell in a hand-basket. We get it, thanks. This is nothing more than drama for drama's sake and is quickly becoming OASYS II in terms of a redundant, overly-dramatized, acutely obsessive, and, ultimately, annoying topic of discussion.

 

 

No sorry. Seems like your post is way more melodramatic than mine, but I understand your need to vent. There is something fundamentally inconsistent about Yoozer's statements. I pointed it out. You have every right not to like it. However, stating that I was arguing about the psychological state of the moderators is outright fraudulent. So I will post what I want to post, and then you can disrespect me if you like. But the notion that I somehow am playing a game and you're not is pretty ridiculous.

[Anderton]

>

 

Okay everybody, here's the deal. We all want these forums to thrive, and HC provides a space with minimal interference. Harmony Central believes in the principle of free speech, as articulated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to material found to be obscene, as judged by local standards. According to "Obscenity and Pornography on the Net," authored by Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, "States are relatively free to regulate obscene material, especially in the context of child pornography and the regulation of the availability of pornography to children." This is important because many minors access Harmony Central.

 

The article continues, "The fact that obscenity is judged, in part, by a local community standard has significant implications for computer networks...Prudent sysops should therefore be aware that the materials they make available on the Internet may be held to the obscenity standards of the most conservative communities."

 

Translation: We don't want to be hauled into court, and believe me, you don't want us to either. We regret the need for any restrictions, we have better things to do with our time than look for things that could get us into trouble. However, the presence of obscene material has already caused Harmony Central to be blocked from libraries and workplaces. This restricts the free flow of conversation far more than disallowing an infinitesimally small number of posts.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Anderton > Okay everybody, here's the deal. We all want these forums to thrive, and HC provides a space with minimal interference. Harmony Central believes in the principle of free speech, as articulated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to material found to be obscene, as judged by local standards. According to "Obscenity and Pornography on the Net," authored by Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, "States are relatively free to regulate obscene material, especially in the context of child pornography and the regulation of the availability of pornography to children." This is important because many minors access Harmony Central. The article continues, "The fact that obscenity is judged, in part, by a local community standard has significant implications for computer networks... Prudent sysops should therefore be aware that the materials they make available on the Internet may be held to the obscenity standards of the most conservative communities." Translation: We don't want to be hauled into court, and believe me, you don't want us to either. We regret the need for any restrictions, we have better things to do with our time than look for things that could get us into trouble. However, the presence of obscene material has already caused Harmony Central to be blocked from libraries and workplaces. This restricts the free flow of conversation far more than disallowing an infinitesimally small number of posts.

 

 

If, then, you did not ban Jeebus because the moderators found the message offensive, but were just concerned that in today's ultraconservative climate, HC could be dragged into court (though I really doubt it, given the fact that the joke did not itself constitute child pornography, but was just a play on it), then what should have been done? Remove the post, post an explanation of why it was done, but why the hell do you then ban Jeebus? That's the part that doesn't make sense. Why should he have psyched out your convoluted reasoning for removing the post, which was not offensive in itself?

[Dave Bryce]

Hi, there...

Went to a kick-ass Paul McCartney concert in Anaheim Saturday night - man, that guy rocks. Got home pretty late, then left early Sunday morning to fly up to Oakland to watch the Raiders get their asses kicked. Missed my flight back, and had to stay over...but I digress...

I am not the one who banned Jeebus for posting the cartoon. The multiple reported post emails that went out when Jeebus started the thread went to all the admins, so it was definitely out of my hands...but I have to say I agree with the call.

Kiddie porn is not descriptive enough? Okay. Guys..the subject of the cartoon was pedophilia and incest, with a bit of S&M thrown in. Really it was. Like I said in another thread, it was about a girl having different forms of sex with her father, and really enjoying it. This is not alluded to, it is graphically stated....and there's a question whether Jeebs "screwed up" by posting it?? You've gotta be kidding me...even Jeebus knows he shouldn't have done it...

If a cartoon about pedophilia, incest, etc. doesn't bother you - so be it (and I'm guessing that you probably don't have children), but there are something like 70,000 people who visit this site - don't you realize that the overwhelming majority if them are likely to (at the very least) not have a favorable reaction to it? Especially when the person who posted it goes on to comment that it's "the funniest thing he's seen all week"?

Surely you guys must be able to understand why it's just not acceptable to post something like that, just like it wasn't okay to post images of two guys having anal sex, or some guy giving a very fat chick head, or some guy with semen all over his face...all of which have been deleted from various HC forums over the past week (seriously). I can't speak for the rest of you, but I don't see any reason why I should expect to come across anything like that in these forums.

Look, I'm no boy scout - not even close - but a line does have to be drawn somewhere, don't you agree?

dB

[felix]

I agree.

[sizzlemeister]

Uh-oh, I posted again without qualifying...


[RANT against the whiners]

You're acting like this is some sort of nation/state and you're a member of parliament - obliged to put the executive branch through the ringer because of activity you disapprove of.

Perhaps you can suspend the sub-vocal counter-arguing as you read this and let it sink in:

The facts are thus:

This is private property. As a matter of fact, this is a marketing vehicle that contributes to a company's bottom line.

We are guests of this company and are here subject to their discretion.

They have made a decision and acted upon it.

There is no such thing as freedom.

Any other "fact" IS IRRELEVANT.


The truth is:

You are welcome to disagree with it.

You are welcome to exercise your right as a member of a democratic society and not stay here if being here is so painful.

Presently, it seems, you may protest the action on the forum - although, as it has been established, needlessly obsessing over a topic that is not only subjective in nature but also incendiary will result in more actions that you'll undoubtedly disagree with and start obsessing over.


You're caught up in a negative web of dissatisfaction: irregardless of the outcome of your vocal-minority dissatisfaction campaign, whatever action taken by the "authorities" in the future will be subject to your disapproval and "vetting". Just as you claim the "authorities" are caught up in the "trap of authority" you are allowing yourself to be caught up in the trap of VICTIM-HOOD. Self-imposed victim-hood, as is the case here, is quite frankly loathsome.

So, observe and mark the facts. If you don't like participating in a company's strategy to enhance their bottom line, you're in the wrong forum. If you don't like the policies and ideologies of OUR HOSTS, then you are not obligated to keep coming here and subjecting yourself to such torment (and if you do, you may want to make an appointment with a counselor or psychiatrist).

Of course, with the facts as they are, as you continue with this campaign of dissatisfaction you continue to insult our hosts whom are merely doing their jobs. And as you continue with this campaign, it is clear you have only yourself in mind and not the goodwill of the rest of the people who populate this forum and the hosts - because it is clear you enjoy these types of negatively-charged discussions and wish to keep them AFLAME for your personal enjoyment.

[/RANT against the whiners]

[felix]

I agree.

[CardioGram]

That's fine, great ban him. I agree that obscene material can or should be disallowed from a family oriented forum.

But some people should have been more careful about their wording:: it was made to sound like Jeebus posted Kiddie Porn itself. Which he did not, there is a huge difference. Saying he posted kiddie porn is practically accusing him of criminal activity. Not fair. I don't remember who exactly phrased it this way, but at several points in the discussion the wording became oversimplified in this way, due to the witchhunt/freak-out mentality that starts to take over when the topic of Kiddie Porn comes up.

Not complaining to anyone in particular here, just to everyone in general.

(And hey I haven't posted here much, take my opinion for what it's worth.)

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce Hi, there... Went to a kick-ass Paul McCartney concert in Anaheim Saturday night - man, that guy rocks. Got home pretty late, then left early Sunday morning to fly up to Oakland to watch the Raiders get their asses kicked. Missed my flight back, and had to stay over...but I digress... I am not the one who banned Jeebus for posting the cartoon. The multiple reported post emails that went out when Jeebus started the thread went to all the admins, so it was definitely out of my hands...but I have to say I agree with the call. Kiddie porn is not descriptive enough? Okay. Guys..the subject of the cartoon was pedophilia and incest, with a bit of S&M thrown in. Really it was. Like I said in another thread, it was about a girl having different forms of sex with her father, and really enjoying it. This is not alluded to, it is graphically stated....and there's a question whether Jeebs "screwed up" by posting it?? You've gotta be kidding me...even Jeebus knows he shouldn't have done it... If a cartoon about pedophilia, incest, etc. doesn't bother you - so be it (and I'm guessing that you probably don't have children), but there are something like 70,000 people who visit this site - don't you realize that the overwhelming majority if them are likely to (at the very least) not have a favorable reaction to it? Especially when the person who posted it goes on to comment that it's "the funniest thing he's seen all week"? Surely you guys must be able to understand why it's just not acceptable to post something like that, just like it wasn't okay to post images of two guys having anal sex, or some guy giving a very fat chick head, or some guy with semen all over his face...all of which have been deleted from various HC forums over the past week (seriously). I can't speak for the rest of you, but I don't see any reason why I should expect to come across anything like that in these forums. Look, I'm no boy scout - not even close - but a line does have to be drawn somewhere, don't you agree? dB

There are lots of topics, offensive in themselves, that people make jokes about. It's what we call 'sick humor'. Hogan's Heroes, about a Nazi concentration camp was a mainstream, popular, comedy show for years. The Nazis, as you must recall, committed some atrocities, that are not funny. However, people make jokes about the Nazis and it is acceptable.

One can make jokes about incest and child pornography without in any sense promoting these topics.

I'm sure that there are many posts scattered throughout these forums that might give some people a bad impression of the forum. Yeah, I think it was ok to post this cartoon - if the moderators were really worried about being sued, then remove it and state why you're doing it.

I think that you need to differentiate between someone understanding sick humor, and NOT being offended by stuff like this (unless it IS offensive - say it's actually bigoted in some way, or actually promotes child abuse, etc), and also understanding that there might be a need to delete something if there is a fear that some kind of action might be taken against HC. However, in my opinion, something shouldn't be removed simply because the moderators find it offensive. I don't think that an overwhelming number of these posts are being submitted, and I don't think that the number of people who will 'get a bad impression' and not stay long enough to get a better impression is very large.

That's just my opinion.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by sizzlemeister Uh-oh, I posted again without qualifying... [RANT against the whiners] You're acting like this is some sort of nation/state and you're a member of parliament - obliged to put the executive branch through the ringer because of activity you disapprove of. Perhaps you can suspend the sub-vocal counter-arguing as you read this and let it sink in: The facts are thus: This is private property. As a matter of fact, this is a marketing vehicle that contributes to a company's bottom line. We are guests of this company and are here subject to their discretion. They have made a decision and acted upon it. There is no such thing as freedom. Any other "fact" IS IRRELEVANT. The truth is: You are welcome to disagree with it. You are welcome to exercise your right as a member of a democratic society and not stay here if being here is so painful. Presently, it seems, you may protest the action on the forum - although, as it has been established, needlessly obsessing over a topic that is not only subjective in nature but also incendiary will result in more actions that you'll undoubtedly disagree with and start obsessing over. You're caught up in a negative web of dissatisfaction: irregardless of the outcome of your vocal-minority dissatisfaction campaign, whatever action taken by the "authorities" in the future will be subject to your disapproval and "vetting". Just as you claim the "authorities" are caught up in the "trap of authority" you are allowing yourself to be caught up in the trap of VICTIM-HOOD. Self-imposed victim-hood, as is the case here, is quite frankly loathsome. [/RANT against the whiners]

 

 

You're just a corporate shill. I know your type. Authority is good. Anything they do is fine. Anyone who complains is a whiner.

[steadyb]

Only 7154 more posts needed to catch up with the p120dude thread. :thu:

[sizzlemeister]

Originally posted by droolmaster0 You're just a corporate shill. I know your type. Authority is good. Anything they do is fine. Anyone who complains is a whiner.

 

 

 

I would figure someone with such a grand education and purported ability to vet nuanced, sophisticated concepts could see more into the situation and come up with something interesting and clever, rather than a base, pedestrian and downright lazy summary such as that.

 

So, since you're personally attacking me again allow me to respond: you're a selfish troll - gnawing at the system for the sake of gnawing in an effort to provide an inking of pleasure in a world clouded by your overbearing ego and hate for people who you deem are less intelligent. You see this forum as a game reserve and you the hunter.

 

I know people just like you - my best friend went and got his PhD and become an arrogant, pompous, self-centered ass. Considering we were both arrogant, pompous, self-centered asses prior to that, that's saying something!