See, I’ve got an interesting conflict here.
Several years ago, I did a store appearance in England, and this guy showed up. He did so solely and specifically to berate me and my work, informing me loudly and repeatedly that everything I wrote sucked. He then proceeded to stand there and berate people standing on line, challenging their intelligence and taste because they were fans of my work. This went on for about twenty minutes, with the store clerks being either too polite or too afraid of the guy to do anything, until I personally threw the guy out because he was bothering the hëll out of people.
I find myself in a similar situation now. On the one hand, I am a firm believer in free speech. On the other hand, some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.
So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
If you vote “yes,” I’ll let them stay. If you vote “no,” we’ll try to find a way to boot them permanently. Not quite sure how, but it’ll be interesting to try and find a way…and I bet we’d have *lots* of people volunteering to help find it.
You guys decide if I should vote people off the island.
PAD
• 
IF you can find a way to put peoples names at the TOP of the post rather than the bottom, I’ll say “Yes, let them stay,” that way I don’t have to wade halfway into some mouth-breathing morons tirade before I figure out I’ve wasted my time.
Someone want to come and post a well-reasoned, even impassion dissenting view, I have no problem with that. Someone screeching at you simply because you don’t like the president is just cretinous.
So, Name at the Top — YES
Name at the Bottom — NO, chuck ’em.
No, it doesn’t.
They are free to use their speech in venues of their choosing, but not necessarily yours. And that’s what this site is.
Wow. I just scanned through some of the comments I hadn’t read earlier. It strikes me as odd that somebody like Udog would have to say over and over that you are being thin-skinned and that you need not bother banning him as he won’t be back. A short goodbye would have sufficed. Even a short parting shot might have been worth the effort. Instead, he tells you how wrong you were in somewhat rude terms, as if this completely demolishes your point. And then he does it again and again.
Udog, it is way too early to have seperation anxiety from Cowboy Pete. You can have your opinions. You can express your opinions. If others take offense at what you say, they will probably respond. It’s that whole “cause & effect” concept in action, and you shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not like you’re being treated like the Dixie Chicks or anything.
Udog, you’re so vain, you probably think this thread is about you.
Putting aside the matter of whether Peter actually is a celebrity (if you asked 500 people on a downtown street about him, how many do you imagine would have heard of him), I don’t see why people who are in the public eye aren’t deserving of courtesy too. True, some famous folks are jerks, just as many, many folks nobody has heard of are jerks. But if someone is famous they are no less deserving of courtesy during direct interaction (say, when posting on their personal message board). And posting opinions that are different than yours doesn’t make them any less deserving of courtesy. Most people grasp this. Joe Quesada has said that although he is put down online all the time, nobody has ever insulted him to his face, say, at a convention. I think most of President Bush’s biggest detractors would treat him with courtesy if introduced to him in person, and not just because he’s President. I find Rush Limbaugh contemptable, but if I met him on the street, I doubt I would call him nuts, or tubby or whathaveyou. But there’s some people who are incapable of getting this– the drive to dominate others is just too strong in them. Most of us don’t care to deal with such people too frequently, if we can avoid it.
You can have your opinions. You can express your opinions. If others take offense at what you say, they will probably respond. It’s that whole “cause & effect” concept in action, and you shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not like you’re being treated like the Dixie Chicks or anything.
But only if your opinions and skin-thickness exactly matches that of PAD and his readers…
I would say that at the very least, there needs to be a willingness to ban people. I was once on a pretty good board on Delphi, but the moderator of the board was very vocal about his policy that no one would ever be banned. That eventually led some people to put that policy to the test. It got so bad that he couldn’t keep up, largely because Delphi didn’t have IP blocking. Eventually he killed the forum rather than spend an hour or two every day checking every post to make sure he wasn’t in violation of Delphi Terms of Service.
That’s not to say that any dissenting opinion should be banned, as some people have tried to spin it. But for those who contribute nothing of substance and have no real intention of trying, or who consistently tear into the holder of an opinion rather than the opinion itself, I believe that a willingness to ban people is not only warranted, but in the long run necessary.
Udog: “PAD – put as much research in your politics as you do in the Hulk’s 42 different personalities and maybe you’d make a little sesne.” I still don’t think they are over the line and should be the spark of banning.
Okay, let me get this straight: the “snails doing windsprints” comment PAD made about the current Hulk writer’s pacing is, to you, over the line, but your “stick to Klingons” and “Hulk’s 42 different personalities” comments are perfectly blameless?
Are you aware that you’re a total hypocrite?
That OTHER John Byrne
You’re insulting someone we admire. We like Peter. Since you insult him, we therefore don’t like you.
It’s difficult to be more succinct than that.
let them stay.Just cause they post don’t mean I gotta read it.
Udog,
My words were: Maybe no offense was meant, but it might’ve been taken that way. If it WAS taken that way, calling you a moron is either retalliation(NOT the beginning as you called it) or them stating what they believe to be a fact.(BTW, it wasn’t the spark of the banning, it was when it continued and again, some have even brought up that it might NOT be you that’s being talked about.)
Never said that you didn’t bring anything to the party, man. Just stated my opinion of MOST people that do such things as calling someone uninformed. Not talking about you, but apparently, that’s how you took it. I didn’t make myself clear on that and that is my fault.
If you read the posts about the For Better Or For Worse item, you might find that someone was being MORE of a irritant than you were. It’s not all about you. (Unless you’ve been contacted personally by PAD and told it was.)
I don’t consider Peter to be a God and I don’t think a lot of us here do either. He’s a man that has the same foibles as us and I don’t hold him to a higher standard just becasue he’s a “celebrity”. I take things he says with a grain of salt and judge it by what I choose to believe after being informed from various sources.
I don’t say much on this board because there are usually people who make the points I would make better than I ever could. It’s quite possible(not saying probable) that the points Peter would have made were already done by an earlier poster, eliminating the need to do so? Yes, he could have said that himself, but the way you were calling him out, it could’ve been seen as baiting.
Just thinking…..
If the only inputs the intended target of the banning provides to these boards are insults and profanities, then I would vote “No.”
If the intended target of the ban simply states and later backs his opinion which happens to be counter to the majority opinion of the other posters, then I would vote “Yes.”
Disagreeing with PADs political and world views is not grounds for banning from these boards. Disagreeing (or even agreeing) while spewing profanity is grounds for banning. I’m assuming (I know, I know… never assume) that the point of letting anyone other than PAD post to these boards is to allow for the intelligent discussion of the initial topic. Inherent in that is the possibility that someone will post a dissenting opinion. That must be allowed to continue. Otherwise, this becomes the “Strokin’ Peter’s Ego” board. Who wants to read that?
(And in case it’s not clear from my comments, BIG fan of PAD and just about every comic he’s written. Love his writing style, love his humor. However, completely disagree with his politics. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.)
Yes, it is a free country (more than one in fact – I’m writing this in New Zealand), but on the other hand we are all here on the authors (or webmasters sufferance) and as such we are guests and should behave as such. I’m reminded of Robert Heinlein’s comments on free speech (in ‘Starbeast’) – perhaps if we all chip in we can buy a shopbox and place it on a handy street corner so that the concept of free speech remains protected.
I say let them stay.
Peter, you can handle whatever comes your way.
BOOT.
I liked your comments LARRY and I guess I did take it the wrong way.
I agree with pretty much all you said.
It’s either ME or BLADESTAR – but no I haven’t been personally contacted by PAD. I’m pretty sure it’s me.
But I love the people who are saying I’m vain for my thinking it was me. COme on! Most of the past two Blogs were my political views and taking PAD to task on being flippant and so zealous that it comes off as being a blowhard.
If that’s too stronga critique than LARRY is right and it becomes a Stroking Peter’s Ego board.
But the name calling thing is crazy at this point. If PAD is so upset about my name calling why did he DO IT BACK by calling me a moron and then contemplate banning me for name calling?
If he took the time to post that I am a moron and that I have no balls – why couldn’t he have taken less time to simply post that my verbal barbs were not appreciated and if I continued he would ask me to leave. I would have left or toned it down.
And at least there seems to be some consenus that I brought something to the table. I never intended to just post an insult and leave. Never did that.
Maybe, such this seems to have a lot of usual suspect, PAD SHOULD state who this is about. It would end alot of the speculation.
I can tell you, that if I was asked to leave or to tone it down or was given some rules of this board I would.
If the rules are simply by throwing back the same insults that PAD can throw at the COmmander in chief si now prohibited – then it’s a pretty chilling effect on an opposing viewpoint.
When PAD posts something flip and snyde about teh President – it doesn’t always make sense to write a polite thesis in retort. Sometimes you respond in kind – and I still stand behind 100% of all I said – I just regret some of the comments that wer taken personally.
But seriously – calling something moronic and being a blowhard etc – is not the same as saying YOU are a MORON. No there’s a big difference.
Hmmm. Quite the conumdrum, Peter. One which, I have to admit, gives me a degree of pleasure to see you in. You’re such an advocate for free speech absolutism that I’m tempted to call you a hypocrite for even thinking of booting them. On the other hand, that would make me a hypocrite because I wholeheartedly believe that if you provide the forum, you control it, and you can boot ’em if you want. Hmm… I have to stick to my guns. If they’re disrupting the forum, boot ’em. Otherwise, let anyone who has a problem with it either leave or ignore them.
So it doesn’t get taken out of context –
I know some great guys that sometimes do moronic things.
PAD can be a great dad, writer and neighbor but sound moronic when zealously spouting politics with no rhyme or reason.
It doesn’t mean that PAD is a moron as a person.
But I guess when you only see black and white and Bush is either a savior or a devil, then I guess my comments are given the same polarization. I guess he can’t see the difference between sounding and acting moronic on a topic and being called a moron as a person.
So, Udog went from not posting again to posting again to say that he won’t post in -political blog entries-again. The problem wasn’t what point of view Udog was taking, it was that (despite him saying contrary) from his first post in the “quotes” blog, he hurled insults. If you have a point to make, make it. It’s not necessary to call someone ignorant, let your point say it. And if someone else stoops (this applies to everyone) and calls you a nasty name or something, don’t respond to it. Don’t escalate things.
As far as the whole banning issue goes, I tend to side with the people that see this almost as PAD’s online house, or perhaps just a place where PAD is having an open gathering at his expense. Have some courtesy and respect for each other.
I also think it should be mandatory to use a real name, and the email option should also be required. Not necessarily visible in the blog, but I think PAD and Glenn need a way to contact people who potentially step over the line and warn them. If it persists, then can them. Using your real name isn’t about not being so egotistical as to want to see your name on the screen, it’s about believing in your comments enough to stand behind them.
monkeys
sorry, you asked for *intelligent* thoughts. I got stuck on simple.
1. Your site, your rules.
2. The majority has spoken. You’ve had multiple requests to remove the troll, so boot away.
3. People who can’t play nicely with others will be fed to Cthulhu.
Seriously people, mind your bloody manners! Respect the forum, respect the host, and stop nancing about with your passive-aggressive bulls–t. Peter is providing this site and the forum for reasons known only to him. Did you see three screens of advertising before you arrived? Did you pay a fee to get in? And you give him crap about deciding to pull some crackpot so that thoughtful and insightful thoughts may be truly and FREELY heard? Pfth.
Show some respect.
You need to define what you’re saying better.
If you mean people who insult others posters, then yes, remove them.
If you mean people who just have different opinions, no, don’t. What is the point of banning them for opinions?
Vote ’em the heck off the island!
am i the only one that finds it funny that udog has posted, i think, four times after saying he wouldn’t be back?
i like the discourse that goes back in forth on these in regards to political discussions and i’d hate to lose that because of people being jerks.
but i don’t think it’s hypocritical of you to consider banning anyone, as it is evident that free speech doesn’t really enter the equation here. this isn’t a public forum, there are no requirements on you.
Udog, you’re so vain, you probably think this thread is about you
EXACTLY!
YEs I continued to post – devoid of any insults to PAD. I even answered a post from AMerican Intelligence DEVOID of any of the complained about behavior.
Why? Because I don’t think it’s fair to now post on the old Blogs when I can’t respond.
I surely won’t be posting on any NEW political blogs PAD makes. Unless of course something changes or some rules are laid out.
AS it stands now – I will NOT be posting on NEW polticial blogs.
But I don’t think it makes sense for someone on “American INtelligence” to call me out and not respond. I did.
But fear not – it seems the left has bazookas and the right must be happy with their slingshots.
I can be called a jerk, a brat, a moron “I have no balls” etc – but ‘tubby’ or blowhard is equivalent to the highest treason?
If the petty infantile name calling is wrong – why take the time to call me all those anmes and instead post a warning or some kind of rule system?
It seems the rules, which no one knows, only apply to those who aren’t fighting the good fight for the left.
I guarantee the same behavior flip flopped to the anti-Bush side would have gone unnoticed.
Think of that.
Udgo, while the earlier thread may have degenerated into insults, I think Bladestar was as, if not more obnoxious than you, and perhaps Peter was referring to him. I don’t think you should have to stop posting on political threads. I think the best thing to do if Peter or anyone else makes an argument you think it poor, that you simply point out where their logic doesn’t hold up.
It’s funny – so many seemed to hate me – but maybe it wasn’t me. I even have luigi novi who if I’m not mistaken didn’t agree with what I said (I may be wrong here) telling me not to necessarily stop posting.
Well I read Bladestar’s stuff – I migth have missed something. It seemed to get sort of petty with someone’s name etc – but I wasn’t sure if he was worse than me or not.
I’m still not going to post on future political blogs unless of course some rules are set out and/or we are told which poster ticked off PAD. Until then it’s a little like playing darts in the dark.
I wouldn’t stop posting b/c of any other reason than I’m not into driving anyone crazy. If PAD went to all this trouble over what I said and would want to ban me – then so be it. Sort of makes my point anyway. But a simple post or warning either by email or on the board would cure any problem he has with ME. There’s no need to re-invent the wheel here.
PAD, this is your site, if people are here simply to start fights, boot em, and don’t feel bad about it.
Udog, did you read what PAD said? He was concerned because of emails from people requesting he ban certain people… why don’t you read what people say rather than simply attack? Oh and since you claim to be backing up the things you say… when you say you won’t post again, please atleast wait 12 hours before posting again… it just makes it hard for us to take you seriously…
Ra!
Ra – it’s like yo’ve got a problem with me b/c I posted.
This might be a topic about me, so I AM posting here. I said I wouldn’t post in his political blogs from this point forward.
But I don’t know if PAD IS talking about me. It would be silly to walk off and think it’s all about me – without knowin. So I certainly will post HERE while we debate this.
Did I insult you or anyone in my posts here? It’s like you take offense to the fact that I merely posted?
Why b/c I ‘said i wouldn’t” Did I break a promise to you? Are we going out or something?
I was talking political blogs – which is what started the ruckus.(possibly!)
Let PAD tell me he doesn’t want me to post here and I am GONE.
Simple.
Either by email or right here.
Until then I think it’s appropriate I defend myself until I’m gone.
Or would you rather I not be here to defend myself?
I guess it’s easier to make points when they go unchallenged.
That’s not what the board should be about.
PAD:
As another poster has noted, you honor us by asking us what we think you should do about something over which you have undisputed control.
You seemed to have addressed this point back with the “gay marriage” thread a little while ago, about how things just run out of steam after a while.
As noted, we can scroll past those who’ve gotten to be obnoxious or boorish.
Let’em talk, so that they can condemn themselves with their own words. We can figure out the score, that they’re being rude’n’such.
Again, thanks for letting us in on this.
George Guay
Udog, you have the right to express your opinion. PAD has the right to decide what does and does not get posted on the website that he (presumably) pays for.
I do not object to you expressing your opinion here or anywhere else, but in reading you posts, you spend more time telling people that they’re uniformed or stupid for holding opinions different from yours instead of defending your own opinions. You have also repeatedly told PAD to stop talking about politics since as a “celebrity,” he is unqualified, yet you refuse to tell anyone why you think you are more qualified than he is to talk about a subject.
You’re trying to have it both ways and it isn’t working. In short, you are obviously posting more to provoke a reaction rather than to express your opinion. That is the definition of trolling.
PAD,
as noted by many other posters, it’s your site and you should do with it what you deem best. However, since you asked for input (and thanks for that), I’d have to vote for
yes
letting them stay. Okay, sure they can be trolls, but (to paraphrase a favorite comic book cliche) aren’t we supposed to be better than the trolls?
The real question, however, is whether or not you want to put up with them. When it comes down to it, it’s your space and your rules, we just post here.
Rick Jones, really
Not true. Did you even read my posts. It’s not about posting a resume to show WHY your opinion should be held to a higher standard or taken more seriously. You’re missing the point – and I guess I don’t even know if THAT is now insulting you and ban-able.
If you read my posts I had a TON of Dem quotes to support my position. I also spoke about CLinton’s actions in Iraq and the CIA flawed policy spearheaded by Robert Toricelli – which Clinton signed into law and which Bush had to repeal after 9/11.
I talked extensively on these topics, so for you to say I never did and am just looking for a reaction is odd.
Besides, aren’t we all looking for a ‘reaction’ in a sense or else we would post by writing it in a notebook.
You truly could not have read only 1/2 of my posts.
“It’s sad that PAD doesn’t have the decency to warn me or whoever the offender is, or post something before taking action. He would have found that the problem would be solved. I didn’t know I was breaking any rule.”-Udog
What exactly would you call this thread? You are still posting, so obviously you haven’t been banned yet, i.e. action has not been taken.
“And I certainly think that Peter (and everyone else) is entitled to post their opinions about politics online without being thereby obliged to endlessly debate every person who wanders onto the board and disagrees. We’re not reading newspaper columns or books here, these are just posts on a website, and Peter doesn’t get paid for them. So why should Peter have to take time away from paid writing to debate everyone who disagrees with him. It’s not as though they’re ever going to come to consensus, nor are they obligated to try to.”
Right on.
Udog, you seem determined to convince everyone that this is all about you and you alone. Are you lonely or something?
“I won’t stick around if everyone thinks I am an “idiot” a “jerk” etc. I am not going to keep posting if I’m considered an annoyance.” And yet, Udog, despite thinking everyone feels this way, you keep posting.
“You can’t preach to the deaf – so I’m not going to try.” Interesting that *you* would speak of trying to preach to the deaf…
monkeys
And once and for all I NEVER said celebrities have no right to speak about politics.
I said that often celbrities talk about it in such a way that they make it as if the other point of view is only held by idiots. That’s the only conclusion one can draw from how PAD and others hold Bush up as some evil entity.
When celeb’s do this they often expose how little they know while in the throes of their zealous fervor.
it does NOT mean that celebs can’t speak politics.
NEVER SAID THAT.
But PAD was being like these guys by being flippant without back-up and making anyone who supports Bush by deduction – a moron.
Big difference. Maybe if people stopped attributing incorrect conclusions from my posts I wouldn’t have to be so repetitive.
Udog, you seem determined to convince everyone that this is all about you and you alone. Are you lonely or something?
Well, Tovy – is that not ‘insulting’. It’s okay to insult me, though.
Your point that I haven’t been banned is moot b.c the thread is about PAD determining it. I could care less b/c it would only porve him to be a hypocrite. I actually think it may be about someone else who was intentionally ticking someone off with name calling after BEING warned by PAD.
I am not going to keep posting if I’m considered an annoyance.” And yet, Udog, despite thinking everyone feels this way, you keep posting
Well Toby – I haven’t been told that by everyone. Am I surprised that most of board doesn’t like me? No – but most of the board is only comfortable with Bush bashing.
I think that you have the right to remove anyone you wish. However, since you are pondering on the free speech aspect of it all… I think the people who come here expressing valid points of view that might not agree with yours or the majority of the readers should be allowed to stay and have their points considered. Although, I don’t think people who come in here and are contrary for the sake of it and leave insulting, mean, or (what I get a lot of on my site) vulgar nonsense should be allowed to continue to post. The anonymity provided by the internet has led a large group of people to believe that they can be unnecessarily cruel and vulgar anywhere they want to on the web.
If you decide to attempt this banning of no-good-niks, I wish you a lot of luck in finding a way to do so.
I say get rid of ’em. Too many people use “free speach” as an excuse to be rude with no ramifications.
An opinion from an annoying poster!
I have no problem admitting I’m an annoying poster. I’m a strong willed, over opinionated and I think I’m always right, except when I’m wrong but even then I’m right about being wrong. I’ve been on AOL, the old Prodigy, MSN, I’ve been kicked off and ignored sometimes. Here’s my opinion.
Sometimes they were absolutely right. During a heated debate, or voicing an opinion one can go overboard (though I won’t e-mail anyone, that’s just like “Where’s that thing you call a life again?”) Sometimes they were being to thin skinned. Sometimes I was a plain bûŧŧhëád, sometimes I don’t back down from my opinion.
The point is this. If they are really disrupting things, boot them. This is your website, and its a friendly place even when people don’t agree with each other. But that does not mean you’re suppose to be as annoying and idiotic as you want to be. And that’s coming from a guy who could probably irritate Mother Terressa and Ghandi.
Chuck em off if they are a disruption. Period.
Bladestar: “Sorry Michael, but physical assault over words is NOT valid consequences by any strectch of the imagination, it’s barbaric mindless violence.”
Me: Ok, maybe it wasn’t the best analogy. But I stand by my point, which is: it ain’t infringing on the guy’s freedom of speech, either.
No – most boards these days have moderators who can ban people for going over the line. As long as it’s clearly defined what behaviour is “over the line” I don’t knwo if people can complain. You can’t be excessively rude in an office or class, for example, and not expect to be asked to leave.
Sheesh. You’d think PAD was declaring war or something.
If someone comes here repeatedly, never posts anything constructive, only insults others… boot them. If they refuse to contribute anything worthwhile, get rid of them. That’s just filtering out trolls, not removing freedom of speech.
Just boot anyone who’s being too rude. Your site, your rules.
UDog–
You’ve run your course. You do nothing but reinforce the fact that you are, in fact, a moron.
And yes, that is an insult.
Half-frivolous thought in the direction of a compromise:
Instead of locking offenders out of the forum (which looks technically difficult), one might simply make their posts invisible by zapping their text into spoiler-colored type.
I don’t know if the software running this place has an ignore option or a way to ban by IP. That would work great.
I usually just read Peter’s posts so I’m not aware of the problem. Proably the best solution is to just ignore the sad specimen, he will eventually tire and go somewhere else.
Whoever owns or manages a space can set the rules for behavior within that space. In any home, and in most restaurants or places of business, a rude, insulting, or disruptive person can be asked to leave without raising “freedom of speech” issues.
Yes, you should be able to boot Udog out of here.
He’s rude, arrogant, disruptive and considers anyone who doesn’t worship at the alter of GWB a basher.
“Fair and Balanced!” – I think that’s a worthy goal.
Unlike the book signing, a blog post is not IN YOUR FACE. You can ignore a nasty post fairly easily. With over 190 posts on this thread already I’d be surprised if you weren’t ignoring most of them, nasty or nice.
It’s your site, you pay for it. How do you want the site to be used?
I wouldn’t fault you for trying to prevent someone from abusing their freedom of speech (other posts have mentioned: libel, profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, etc.). Is it not possible to present an opposing opinion while being civil?
Originally posted by Udog @ 02/06/2004 08:01 AM ET:
Wow – you go away for a night and there’s a ton of posts on your future.
The guy he’s talking about is me.
Originally posted by Bladestar @ 02/06/2004 09:28 AM ET:
Nice try Udog, but we all know he’s talking about me
Heee.
Originally posted by Udog @ 02/06/2004 12:10 PM ET, in the midst of yet another horrendously long post, after having declaimed that he would never post here again:
People – I am the one that kindled PAD’s fire and I feel the record should be set straight.
More posting by Udog @ 02/06/2004 01:28 PM ET, perhaps on the theory that if he says it often enough then it will become true:
I think it is me.
Hey, look, it’s Udog again! 02/06/2004 03:53 PM ET, everything is still all about him, because anything more than a week old has nothing to do with current events:
It’s either ME or BLADESTAR – but no I haven’t been personally contacted by PAD. I’m pretty sure it’s me.
But I love the people who are saying I’m vain for my thinking it was me. COme on! Most of the past two Blogs were my political views and taking PAD to task on being flippant and so zealous that it comes off as being a blowhard.
I’m gonna stop tracking these. It’s getting too lengthy. Did anyone else, farther down the line, also think s/he is the subject of this blog?
Nope.
The ego! It is HUGE! “Peter David has said that several readers of this forum are tired of certain troublesome posters, and have emailed him requests to bar said troublesome posters from his website. Clearly, they are ALL TALKING ABOUT ME! Wow, I must be SUPER important! And those ‘several readers’ who allegedly have emailed him ABOUT me, why, that must be a thinly disguised euphemism for PAD alone wanting me gone, for surely these other people don’t really exist!”
Oy vey, children. Please try to notice what Mr. David actually said: //other readers// are complaining about some of the posters, and asking to have them removed. This is totally unlike Mr. David saying, “I am tired of certain posters, and I’m thinking about removing them.”
Also, it’s an awfully huge presumption to leap one’s own name to the top of the hypothetical “I am the center of everyone’s attention” list. Perhaps the question looks a bit different if egocentrism is removed from the equation?
Originally posted by BernieG @ 02/06/2004 10:51 AM ET:
I absolutely reserve the right to say they’re stuffed plumb full of wild blueberry muffins.
Bern, I love you. Thank you, that image made my day.
this is not about free speech and feeling torn because you think it does is utter nonsense.
Think of it this way if I want to take a group of my friends to a startrek convention just to make fun of everybody should I be allowed to do that?
There is no law saying you have to let them in because it is not about free speech
DAvid Please use your head