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
• 
NO. If they annoy you boot their butts. The government is a democracy, subject to an ethical obligation to allow free speech. Individuals are under no such obligation. Free speech on a board that you run also includes your freedom to NOT include what other people say. You’re not being run with my tax dollars, so you can boot everybody and anybody you want to. Great site, PAD, and keep on writing those great NF books!
Ok,
So I’ve been following this all day and I feel like chiming in.
(Pause for effect)
Any type of internet communication is basically a microcosm of our real lives. Somehow I don’t quite understand how any of us can be suprised that we will invariably encounter the occasional jerk-weed, bûŧŧ-hëád, malcontent, or whatever name we feel like assigning to him/her. I’m not pointing fingers here, it’s just that sarcasm, for example, doesn’t always translate well in the written word so it’s natural that some other vocal inflections may be taken out of context as well and can lead to mis-understandings. I don’t know if that is the case here or not.
Personally, I wouldn’t care what people called me online. Hëll, I don’t care what they call me in person or what they think of my point of view. In a way I believe that criticism (toward me) helps me to learn how to communicate better.
Now, PAD and I don’t know each other and the discourse here between us is minimal. I do, however, read his posts and how he replies to others statements. The impression I have is that he, PAD, is a stand-up guy and will make the right decision on this issue.
And while I’m at it (now entering the realm of ‘The Rant’), I feel that I should point out that ALL of us have good and bad days, stupid little things that irritate the hëll out of us, and people that plain old rub us wrong. Any one of these factors could have played into these e-mails PAD received.
As for the conflict of interest, all I can off you, PAD, is a paraphrase:
“These words must apply to everyone or they are worthless.”
Captain James T. Kirk in reference to the U.S. Constitution.
Silly? You bet. But I’ll take wisdom wherever I can get it.
That’s why I’ll go ahead and vote for the so-called trouble makers to remain. There are alternate ways of handling them that are far more productive.
Thanks, everyone, for your attention.
Salutations,
Mitch
Jarissa, I think Udog has a point. In other words, he is enough of an ášš to warrant a banning.
“As for the conflict of interest, all I can off you, PAD, is a paraphrase:”
Uh… That was supposed to be “offer you.” I have no interest in ‘offing’ PAD.
Salutations,
Mitch: Spellchecker Supreme!!
I vote NO (if that’s to get rid of them). I come here for interesting PAD news and to read interesting comments. I don’t have time to read through pages of crap like some people are posting here. I say ban them not for their opinions but in the manner in which they’re expressed.
Pretty much of the belief that you’re not actually contributing to free speech if you are only making noise (as some of the obvious trolls are).
Best idea would be an ignore list so that any post from a given person or ISP is blanked. But since this is not possible in this format, my next suggestion would be to highlight or flag all posts by repeat offenders. Therefore, posters can see an obstruction on the information superhighway and simply avoid it.
Basically, identify noise as such and let the rest of the community ignore it.
Ummn, this *IS* your place right?
If someone drops into my home, insults me and my guests, and proceeds to proclaim the rights of “Free Speech” (Which I highly doubt he ever fought for) I would apply my foot to his rear, turn on the sprinklers and release the dogs from the back yard.
I vote for a gatekeeper, preferably the one intoduced as’ This is Mr.Death, He’s a Reaper!”
Gee Craig-y , must be nice to be able m to sit there and call people morons with impunity while other just add a “y” to your nmae and you cry like a baby.
How do you deal with the real world where noone gives a rat’s ášš about you?
Ast least here people talk to you and acknowledge you exist.
from opinionjournal.com
Here’s a good rule to follow: When someone on the liberal-left tells you he’s for freedom, don’t believe him. Somehow when “social liberals” have their way, it quickly turns out that anything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden. A case in point: gay rights. Those of us with libertarian impulses agree that government shouldn’t prohibit gáÿ šëx between consenting adults. We may even be sympathetic to the call for marriagelike benefits for same-sex couples. But we also believe in free speech and thus are quite troubled by stories like this one, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.:
A high school teacher in British Columbia, punished for writing publicly against homosexuality, is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the province’s Supreme Court has ruled. . . .
In 2002, the British Columbia College of Teachers suspended [Chris] Kempling for one month for “professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a BCCT member.”
It had been investigating a complaint received after Kempling wrote a series of letters to his local newspaper between 1997 and 2000 saying homosexuality was wrong.
Reuters quotes Justice Ronald Holmes, who wrote the decision: “Discriminatory speech is incompatible with the search for truth.” Even if we accept for the sake of argument the proposition that Kempling’s speech was “discriminatory” and false, it is still arrant nonsense to call it “incompatible with the search for truth.” The search for truth inevitably entails exposure to many false ideas, some of them obnoxious. The “liberal” agenda Holms advocates is actually a profoundly illiberal one: the imposition by bureaucrats and judges of a preapproved “truth.”
***
Just as long as PAD makes sure he’s not kicking people off for being idiots because they don’t agree with him.
On the other hand, there are some very obnoxious people here, so I wouldn’t mind seeing some of the obvious trolls go.
Peter,
If you manage to read this far, then my two cents are to just leave things be. When I feel someone is crosssing the line into blatantly insulting or offensive language, then I just skip past their post or stop reading the thread–including those times when you’ve used “colorful metaphors”. We all have that choice.
I also agree with your right to moderate as you see fit, however. Therefore, I vote that you do what you feel is right.
Daniel (who’ll always remember your knee surgery-Major General story with great fondness and happiness)
I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but if no one else has said it, here it is. As the owner of this “house” Peter has the right to deny anyone access for any reason, especially if they wipe their hands on the drapes, piss in the flowerpots and yell fire at 3:00 in the morning. It’s time to send the trolls back under the bridge.
Two things that I want to say.
First – Your board – your rules. If my living room were open to people to come in and ask me questions, and then they started slamming me, or just being plain rude, I certainly would feel free to remove them from the premisses without feeling I have violated their rights to free speech under the first ammendment. They just have to do it from somewhere else.
Second – I agree that you are NOT removing there right to speak, just removing there “privilege” (not right) to do so here. Let them speak somewhere else. You are not required to provide them a forum to do so to support your beliefs of free speech.
My two cents worth.
Lurker here who found this site about a month ago… I do think personal attacks and name calling are inappropriate. However, I would be hesistant to ban people from posting.
I’ve enjoyed reading past posts at times because of the lively banter that comes from passionate difference of opinion. It would be a shame if all the comments became bland and homogenized because most posters held similar views.
I don’t think I would be pleased if someone came into my living room and “lit their own farts on fire.” On the other hand, it would definitely make life more interesting and make a good story to tell for years to come.
Ultimately, for better or for worse, it is Mr. David’s right to do whatever he wants!
Toss ’em.
1) It’s a private site and not a 1st Amendment issue. It’s paid for and maintained by PAD’s graciousness and as such, deserves respect. We’re in PAD’s house…don’t piss on the carpet or insult the cook. Unless I’m the only one not paying dues…
2) Disagreement can be conducted civally. Moron, idiot or similar name calling is not disagreement, it’s someone being an ášš. I don’t care how researched, well-reasoned, passionate and correct any perspective is, calling the other side names immediately disqualifies not only your opinion, but your right to express it (in my book).
3) PAD is who he is. You don’t like the politics or the prose, not sure why this site is on your visit list. Lively debate? Well, if that includes the disrespect and name calling, that cannot be it. And ones who do certainly cannot hide behind any amendment as basis to get away with it.
3a) Ever notice folks who hide behind an amendment in many instances truly don’t know what the amendment really means? Like it’s some kind of get out of jam free card.
4) Lastly, tossing anyone who has brought validation to being tossed likely is not doing PAD any favors elsewhere. Why worry about being badmouthed elsewhere…likely already is being done.
Toss ’em.
Just like I’d volunteer to do executions on the weekends, if you need someone to send “teh ban!” notification, I’d be happy to do it. Well, as long as it’s not Adler or Novi . I’m kinda found of their THOUGHTFUL and RESPECTFUL responses…
Why do I keep getting flashbacks from that episode of MASH where Winchester has threatened to never speak to Hawkeye or BJ again, only to continually break his silence to say, ‘These are positively my last words…’
Interesting discussion Peter, but it’s your house, your rules. If people don’t like it, go somewhere else. Or better yet, let them put up their own website. The Internet is a big place; I’m sure they can find their own little corner to set up camp. One of the things I like about posting every now and again is I get to exchange ideas and opinions with other people from all over the world. Sometimes they agree, sometimes I get my head handed to me for saying something stupid or ill-informed. Just like a real conversation. But in the end, my yardstick is this: I would never say anything in a post that I wouldn’t happily say to somebody’s face. And I’ve never posted here under a handle or clever name. I’ve often thought that a downside to the Internet is it’s allowed people to post anonymously, which absolves them of any responsibility. Maybe it’s time for some of them to finally take some responsibility. And no, I’m not speaking of anybody specifically- I’d hate to launch another series of ‘It’s me, no it’s me!’ posts!
Anyway Peter, I agree with some of previous postings: put a little disclaimer about behavior. If someone still wants to be obnoxious, get rid of them. Good riddance, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
(Or was he talking about me? Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Funny – I looked back at the posts – PAD tossed the moron name around first.
It’s a double standard here and it’s pretty silly. If you are part of PAD’s cult you can call me a moron – but if you respond in kind this is suddenly someone’s living room and grandma is now offended.
SOme people want to concentrate on the barbas in my posts instead of the points. I guess that’s easier if you want to avoid real debate.
PAD never debated the issues – instead resorted to name calling.
Forget that Democrats like Zev Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ed Køçk etc can support the President while Dems like Kerry not only run for office but run from their opinion about supporting the war.
Call PAD on his view and how he can differentiate it from such intellectual dishonesty and there’s silence – except when he calls me a name.
That’s exchanging viewpoints?
Okay, after putting in my two cents about how some people shouldn’t feel it’s their duty to “Correct” someone else’s way of thinking, I read this.
And I’m too busy laughing to let my blood get up.
When someone uses Democratic quotes as an illustration in a different thread, PAD puts up some Bushisms to illustrate how it’s just as easy to take his exact quotes in and out of context to make the man look like an idiot. That’s ALL he did, and he did it to prove a point that anyone can do it with any political figure.
And somehow, after doing this, he’s called a misinformed blowhard who does no research and doesn’t back up his points. Okay, now since he actually LOOKED UP these quotes to make his point, guess what? That’s the very DEFINITION of “Research”. And again, all he did was post quotes to make a point. Exactly what the HÊLL is he supposed to “back them up” with? They’re QUOTES. Plain and simple. You don’t need to back those up.
Then the whole “Stick to what you know ” crap, that celebrities only reveal their ignorance by spouting off on politics? Again, unless you’re in a position to know that they haven’t seen, read or heard anything that contradicts your beliefs, you have no right to call them “Misinformed”. For all you know, they’ve read the SAME things you have, as well as several others, and *gasp* simply formed an opinion different from yours. Doesn’t mean that they’re any less well-read or up to date. They simply don’t see things the way you do. Doesn’t make them ignorant or misinformed.
Oh, and I also saw something to the effect of “I’m allowed to voice my political opinions as a concerned voter”. Well, I think PAD is also a “Concerned voter”. Being a writer and a voter isn’t mutually exclusive. Unless of course, your political opinion means nothing as soon as you become even moderately famous.
Fun fact: For every fact or article you can pull off the web to prove your point, there’s another one out there to prove the point against you. Your view is not “Correct” or “Absolute”.
Accept that without calling people “Ignorant” or “Misinformed blowhards”, and maybe, just MAYBE, you can actually claim to be engaging in logical discussions.
That being said, anyone who comes on here just to go on and on about how “Right” THEY are and how “Wrong” the others are is just as guilty of being a “Blowhard”.
PAD’s quotes in no way responded to the ones I put up.
They were about nation building BEFORE 9/11 – irrelevant
They were verbal gaffes – to show what? Bush isn’t the best public speaker? WE knew that and there wasn’t an argument.
It doesn’t really matter anymore. The Democratic party has lost its way and people like PAD shout out against Bush with no logic or reason. And NO – posting a bunch of quotes from Bush is NOT research or defending your point of you.
If PAD can denegrate conservatives and the President I can state that my opinion is he’s a misinformed blowhard.
If he wants to BAN me or others b/c that insults him and this is his house – well then simply ASK.
Becuase guess what? If PAD asked ME to not post – I would stop because in a way I’d have proved my intellectual dishonesty point.
Holy OVER REACTION!
First off this is most likely about UDog, who only crossed the line when he typed the words tubby. Which was just silly.
Is it only a coincidence that he is on the other side of the fence politically????
PAD you know from recent history, when you bring up politics the place goes nuts. I personally love it and loath it at the same time, but you knew it was going to happen.
PAD, have you ever thought of yourself as overly sensitive?
A few months ago, on a completely non-political related posting by yourself, I jokingly mentioned that this is Peter David s Website, so let us discuss how Bush was to blame.
Anf then you started up with the insults.
Rest and Relaxation my friend.
I come to Peter David’s blog to read what PD thinks. No offense to the rest of you, but on the rare occassion that I venture into the comments, I’m scanning the posts to see further comments by PD and PD only.
But don’t boot anyone off the island, Peter. Maybe make it so their comments are only a shade darker than the background colors and therefore more difficult to read to the point where those of us skimming the comments won’t even bother. This may be more difficult than it’s worth, though. Hopefully the offender will just go away after all this. Why would you stay where you’re not wanted? Life that pathetic?
PAD’s quotes in no way responded to the ones I put up.
They were about nation building BEFORE 9/11 – irrelevant
Nope. Not irrelvant at all. Perfectly relevant to the point he was trying to make in the original thread: You can use out-of-context quotes from anyone of either party to make them look bad. Ever heard the quote “The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes”? THAT was the point he was making, and as such, the quotes are totally relevant.
They were verbal gaffes – to show what? Bush isn’t the best public speaker? WE knew that and there wasn’t an argument.
Again, totally missing the point of the post. See above. TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN USE OUT-OT-CONTEXT QUOTES TO PAINT ANYONE IN A BAD LIGHT, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Lincoln, ANYONE.
It doesn’t really matter anymore. The Democratic party has lost its way and people like PAD shout out against Bush with no logic or reason.
Hey, guess what? I also think the Dems are in a boat without paddles. I see some of them as decent people who genuinely want to help,but are totally clueless nowadays as to how to get their act together and do so. Just the same, I’m also not a fan of Bush, not always just the man in particular, but the current administration. If you want to weigh his performance based on the war in Iraq, he’s doing great. Domestically, I think he’s letting far too much fall by the wayside. And that’s from reading newspapers and watching the various newschannels and forming my own opinion about it.
And NO – posting a bunch of quotes from Bush is NOT research or defending your point of you.
When it’s illustrating the point he was making in the beginning of that thread, he most certainly IS making his point. And if he went out and looked up quotes from Bush, it’s the textbook definition of “Research”. If he just happened to have an entire list at hand, ready to cut and paste at his liesure, then you could accuse him of doing “No research”.
If PAD can denegrate conservatives and the President I can state that my opinion is he’s a misinformed blowhard.
I could denigrate conservatives just based on the quotes I’ve read from some of them, as well as based on discussions I’ve had with them. Does that make me a “Misinformed blowhard” as well? I had quite a blood-raising discussion with a woman in my theatre group, a self-described God-fearing Republican, so I figured she’d at least have a good moral compass. I had no idea I’d be faced with her saying things like “Native Americans deserve nothing from us,because they went to war with US and they LOST. They had a chance to become citizens and they didn’t. That’s their tough luck.” Now, this person would totally agree with every political statement you, Udog, has ever made, yet just from her statement above (One of MANY like-minded sentiments to come from her) she can also be called a “Misinformed blowhard” who did zero research to back up her point of view. Any attempts to correct her with actual historical facts only made her respond with “Well, if you don’t like this country, leave.” That was the mindset I was faced with. Eventually, I decided it just wasn’t worth it to try and confront her with the facts that supported my point of view because her mind had already been made up. Her view was the “Correct” one. So I have simply stopped arguing with people like her who have rampantly different views from me, because anything I could come up with to prove my point would be labeled as “Ridiculous liberal-biased claptrap.”
Now, you may take the above to mean that you’re totally vindicated in your beliefs that people aren’t arguing with you because they can’t back things up. And that’s your right. However, from reading your posts, whether you intend to or not, you are coming off exactly like this woman. Anything that can be brought against you is somehow irrelevant, or “Biased”, and you’ve closed your mind to the fact that anything you’ve seen or read might also have been “Biased”, only in your favor. As such, many people would simply prefer not to engage in discussions with you, because you come off so… Well, “zealous” is the kindest word I can use… So people would prefer not to get into a political argument with you, because from what I’ve read of your posts, it would feel like smacking my head against a brick wall, only with less humorous consequences. And that’s an “Informed” opinion from reading your own words.
And if you somehow get banned or are asked to stop posting, you are entitled to go off claiming some small “Victory” that you’ve proven your point. The only point I’ve seen you prove so far is that you believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong or needs to provide evidence written on stone tablets carved by the almighty himself to prove you wrong.
This is a forum for PAD to voice his thoughts, and on occasion, ASK for opinions. It’s his Weblog, not a discussion bulletin board, as you’ve taken it to be. They just happen to be more tolerant about letting threads get out of hand, which even you have to admit to. You don’t like his opinions, fine. Again, it’s NOT YOUR DUTY to try and call him on it or correct him. At the end of the day, his opinion doesn’t affect your life or your paycheck in the slightest, so stop putting so much effort into fighting it.
What Will McC is trying to say is: If you don’t agree with PAD, SHUT UP!
Good job Will
Interesting.
First, I’m a newcomer to this board, I’ve only read a few posts (mostly the TV reviews) and posted only once but after reading the above 200+ I thought I’d add a comment.
PAD was looking for a vote to allow or ban posters 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)”
Gathering from that statement. I believe his point isn’t a fee speech argument or that it’s his board so he should decide who can post or who can’t.
No, IMO, It’s what I find most irritating about the internet. The fact that anyone can post anything, more to the point, name calling, insults… or worse and hide behind an anonymous user name.
Sure, it’s easy to spew out names when you can hide in your home, pounding away at the keys. Miles away from the face of the person you insulted.
The fact is, if PAD says something I agree with or if I wish he’d shut up, he says it with his signature. He’s out there giving his point of view and has the integrity to stand behind it.
** What Will McC is trying to say is: If you don’t agree with PAD, SHUT UP!
Good job Will **
Wow. Just… Wow.
Actually, the point I was trying to politely make was that HE was the one who was coming off like HE was the one saying “PAD, you don’t agree with me so shut up about politics.” As well as trying to reasonably tell him not to waste so much time and effort on something that doesn’t affect him in the least, as he seems to be taking critical attacks on Bush rather personally. Again, it’s your right to disagree with someone, just don’t come off like a shrieking harpy when you do so.
But your interpretation…
Wow. Creative, to say the least. Remind me never to have someone translate my words in a similar manner in a particularly sticky dimplomatic situation.
Some of what WIll Mc C makes sense. Again I don’t understand though. If I am one of the voices that are annoying people – why do you make such a long and thought out post?
It’s not worth going back and forth on how off the mark PAD’s qoutes were to any point of mine. I’ll let it die it’s own death.
But I really love how people keep saying this is PAD’s board and I”I come here to read what PAD has to say” and “it’s not a discussion board.”
Really – then why let anyone post – isn’t that the point.
If not – then don’t have the entry post availability – and just come and read what PAD thinks.
OR I guess it is an entry post if you agree with PAD. And if there is insulting to be done it can only be done by PAD and those who support him.
“Did I insult you or anyone in my posts here? It’s like you take offense to the fact that I merely posted?”
Actually UDog, so long as you’re respectful, I’ve got nothing against ya. The problem I’ve have is that you’re taking everything so personally, and dámņ dude… take a chill pill.
It’s a website, not the holy grail. And really, why does it matter who started the insults? You stooped to the same level, you’re just as guilty… that’s just something that irks me man.
Ra!
**If he wants to BAN me or others b/c that insults him and this is his house – well then simply ASK.
Becuase guess what? If PAD asked ME to not post – I would stop because in a way I’d have proved my intellectual dishonesty point. **
Y’know, I agree with PAD’s political stance & even I have to agree with the above statement. PAD’s debating skills need a lot of work. It seems that he’s fairly good at stating his POV, but seems to falter at times when defending it. I also note a tendency to quickly resort to name calling, which only underminds his position. Cheap shots only make you look cheap.
But it is your site & you have the right to say who posts here and who doesn’t.
Udog, why do you persist in distorting the truth? If one were to go over all your comments you made, they could easily find countless lies. For example: You claim that PAD called you a moron before you said anything of the sort to him. The truth is that you called him at least three different names on numerous occasions before he insulted you. Also, you claimed not to be a republican (just like Bill O’Reilly). Although I can’t prove that that is a lie, I think it’s pretty obvious it is. I have no problem with you being a Republican, but please don’t lie about it. Those were just two examples I came up with off the top of my head.
“SOme people want to concentrate on the barbas in my posts instead of the points. I guess that’s easier if you want to avoid real debate.” -Udog
If you were so interested in the “real debate”, why did you bother to throw in things to distract from it?
As far as the whole quote thing goes, Peter took some quotes prior to 9/11, but I presume that was also part of the whole “out of context” thing. Perhaps he shouldn’t have included the dates to better make the point. They were quotes contrary to how the pres is behaving now (in some cases, and in other cases just to make him look foolish), and without context, you have no idea when he said them under what circumstances (except for the fact that PAD included dates). It’s that whole deal with manipulating what someone says, or manipulating statistics to prove your point, it can be done from both sides. And just out of curiosity, Udog, since I missed the thread and I”m not about to go digging it up, what were the quotes you posted about (in general, very very briefly) and their time frame (since you think the pre 9/11 Bush quotes are irrelevant).
“If PAD can denegrate conservatives and the President I can state that my opinion is he’s a misinformed blowhard”-Udog
Yes, you could, but you’d have more impact and foster a better debate by explaining why conservatives and the president are so great. Like Will posted, unless you know what someone did or didn’t research/read up on or whatever, you can’t really get away with calling them misinformed because they could have looked at the exact same information you did and come to a different conclusion. It would be far more interesting to understand how two different people can come up with two different conclusions rather than sink to name calling.
Alright, I realize I’m way off the topic, so I apologize. To sum up my ON TOPIC thoughts: post people’s names at the tops of their entries, require email address to post (but don’t make them visible to all), post a brief “proper behavior” summary somewhere (a link to click on perhaps, that everyone really only needs to read once), have a two or three strike policy for breaking the “rules” (which include private and if necessary public warnings), and ban anyone who comes in for the sole purpose of disruption (i.e. name calling bereft of having made a point, excesively long abrasive posts, or copying and pasting the previous 100 posts, etc.)
Alright then, as always,
monkeys
When this is over, can we do the Lousy Pun Challenge again? It was WAY more fun than this. What a blast!
Personally I don’t see how 9/11 could have changed someones views that much. Anyone who has ever read science fiction should have seen this coming a mile away. I don’t mean that I could have predicted the time, place, and the method the terrorists would use, but I knew something like this could have happened in the not too distant future. Sure science fiction is obviously fiction, but it has always done an amazing job of predicting things to come.
When this is over, can we do the Lousy Pun Challenge again? It was WAY more fun than this. What a blast
Agreed.
OR I guess it is an entry post if you agree with PAD. And if there is insulting to be done it can only be done by PAD and those who support him.
Good God. See, this is the very thing about your arguments that I tried to point out above. You’ve clearly already made up your mind that there’s some grand design to keep out “Differing” viewpoints on this Weblog, despite evidence to the contrary, the most obvious one being that no posts that disagree with PAD’s views have been deleted. You seem dead-set on proving that PAD has a vested interest in “silencing” people like you, or at the very least, convincng everyone else that you’re right about it. So honestly, how can someone argue with such single-mindedness?
As for PAD making “Slams” against Bush… Well, again this IS his forum, he’s allowed to voice his opinion. And you’re allowed to voice yours. He just shouldn’t be slammed for voicing it in public by someone who (for some reason) is taking comments made about Bush personally. That seems to be the whole crux of your “Well, if he can insult Bush, I can insult him” mentality.
Should Johnny Depp have been slammed for comparing the USA to a “Snarling puppy”? Hëll no! Anyone who can think clearly should realize that that’s the image most people living abroad have of this country right now.
Dennis Miller, who used to criticize both parties with equal venom on a regular basis is now such a firm supporter of Bush and “Pre-emptive strikes” that you’d think he was given a job as a spin doctor. But I’m still a fan of his, and even though I can think of several good reasons to be AGAINST pre-emptive strikes, I’m not going to go calling him a misinformed blowhard. That’s just way too presumptuous.
Again, you’re entitled to have your own opinion, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t voice it. (Unlike a quote from a senator I had read during the whole ‘Dixie Chicks’ non-issue: “Just because you have a right to say something doesn’t mean you should”) But for the love of SANITY, this is PAD’s site, and I honestly can’t understand why so many people feel it’s their duty to call him out on the carpet for voicing his opinion, just because it differs from theirs. Disagree if you must, but don’t be vindictive or virulent about it. Basically, to my eyes this whole thing is boiling down to this type of discussion:
“You don’t like Rocky Road ice-cream? I don’t CARE if that’s your opinion, pal! You’re totally uninformed and you’d better be prepared to back up your dislike!”
There’s no big effort being made here on behalf of PAD and his webmaster to shut out people who disagree. Sure, you may be ruffling the feathers of his “Supporters” as you call them, but really, can’t you at least admit to the possibility that it’s due to the attitude of your posts, and the way you present yourself as “All knowing”?
If you’re really here to promote “Discussion”, then you should have realized this from the start: If you see that PAD dislikes a certain politician, that’s his opinion based on what he’s seen and read. You can disagree with him all you like, and produce whatever articles you want to that support your point-of-view. But again, realize that this won’t always change someone’s mind, OR prove your point, because there will always be opposing arguments. Things that look good on the surface can have ugly roots if you dig deep enough, just as things that look bad can actually be good if you take the time to look for it. And when it comes to politics, there’s plenty of that in either party. Just because you see something you like, it doesn’t mean that there’s not something dirty and nasty underneath it. Someone may have dug deep enough to uncover this, but if you were so devoted to believing in the good, would you honestly take evidence to the contrary at face value? Or would you dismiss it as “Biased”? Because clearly, you’re of the opinion that PAD is only seeing the bad without seeing the good, without even accepting the possibility that maybe he did find something he didn’t like, which influenced his opinion. Is he obligated to TELL you what that is, “Back his opinion up” as it were? No. Maybe he recognized that whatever he saw or read would not be accepted by the opposing view and saw the futility in arguing. It’s his opinion, based on what he’s learned. Again, as I reiterate: Not knowing what he knows, it’s incredibly arrogant to call him “Uninformed”. You don’t know what he knows that’s different from you, and he is not obligated to explain himself to you if you disagree.
Am I saying you can’t disagree with him? No. Am I saying that you can’t POST here? No. Am I saying that you have to keep your mouth shut if you disagree with him? No. I’m saying that you should respect the fact that the man has an opinion, and he’s really not obligated to back it up to anyone who demands it.
Am I saying you have to LIKE that? No. Just that you have to live with that and be satisfied.
And now, I leave this thread as I myself have become just as guilty of dragging this out.
How do you deal with the real world where noone gives a rat’s ášš about you?
Gee, had to reply and insult me twice, rather than once this time.
Do you feel better by getting that extra shot in there?
See, the amazing difference between you and I is that I don’t get my pants (panties in your case?) in a knot over the fact that I am a nobody.
You? Well, I won’t even try and explain it to you.
As for UDog… your problem seems to be (imo) that of many people who don’t like it when the opinions of others don’t agree with yours.
And despite whatever PAD, or anybody else says, the opinions are never good enough for you, never factual enough, never backed up enough.
You’d just prefer to disagree and find every reason TO disagree and belittle the opinions of others, rather than accept them at face value.
Is this the longest thread the board has seen yet?
Ben, we all die someday, right? Does that make it any less shocking or painful to lose someone you love? Does it have any less impact? You mentioned before that you had not yet finished high school (if I’m wrong, I apologize), so hopefully you haven’t had to deal with losing many family members. But, I assure you, it can very much change a lot of things from how you treat others to how you live your own life.
I realize many people will probably respond to what you said before I post this, but I had to tend to my five month old first.
monkeys
While I usually stop reading these blogs after 100 entries (when people *really* start repeating themselves), I kept going here. Apart from emjoying reading Udog and Bladestar arguing over who was the original obnixious and insulting poster (“I’m the annoying one he wants to kick off!” “No, *I* am!” “No…”) one thing definitely comes to mind:
Ban Udog.
The site will be more intelligent (Udog can’t grasp that people can be intelligent and disagree with him — look at his posts here for proof), and he can blame something else on “liberal bias” instead of his own shortcomings.
Do I agree with PAD’s political views? No, not really. Do I consider myself a fan of his work? Yes, and any difference of opinions only broadens our knowledge base. This thread, bored the pants off of me, but I scanned through most of it. PAD has squashed plenty of people who have no love for his opinions in the past, just by turning their words against them, and showing them how poorly thought out their opinions were. My vote is for the people who enjoy this site to ignore any posts that offend them, let PAD publicly slam them, and they will go away on their own. No reason to ban anyone, let the opinions and the fur fly!
Toby, I wasn’t speaking of the emotional aspecs. I wasn’t looking at it from a personal point of view. I was looking at the bigger picture, and how a politician should look into the future and expect something horrible to happen, and base their worldviews around this. I will make a gloomy prediction. I predict that in the next ten to twenty years, another great catastrophe will happen, and at least ten thousand people will die. I will be shocked and saddened when it happens, but I still expect it to happen, and I base my world views around this. (Obviously this is just one of the things I use to base my world views on).
>Ban Udog.
>The site will be more
>intelligent (Udog can’t grasp
>that people can be intelligent
>and disagree with him — look at
>his posts here for proof), and
>he can blame something else
>on “liberal bias” instead of his>
>own shortcomings.
Well… I mean, yes, he certainly is somebody who doesn’t grasp the concept of “let’s agree to disagree.” Yes, he posts and posts and posts, demanding that people who disagree with him argue with him to his satisfaction, insults the host of the board, and claims that those who have a problem with this behavior are just thin-skinned and Peter-David-worshipping sycophants. And yet…
Ðámņ… where was I going with this?
Seems to me that everyone here is arguing about the parameters of…..arguing! Arguably this may be a waste of effort.
If someone is offensive, one of the best things you can do is ignore it on the postings. In real life this may not work, because along with taking offense one might also take a poke at the offender. Here it’s different.
Theoretically if everyone ignores the offensive yotz, said yotz should realize it and either a) stop being offensive (desirable) or b) stop posting because he or she can’t get a rise (read response) from those he or she is attacking (even more desirable)
I dunno. I’m just a Canadian…….
I often read your comments and alot of the time I agree and sometimes I disagree. This is your site so you have the right to decide what you want on or off this site. There is a difference between free speech, slander and causing a problem just to get people riled up. The Supreme Court addressed free speech when it said a person can’t just yell fire in a crowded movie theatre when in fact there is no fire. If people are purposely just causing a problem then ignore them. If they stop gettting responses then they’ll stop posting. Why anyone who hates your work or your opinions would feel the need to go to your site constantly and attack you is unbelievable to me. It would seem that person or persons need find some better way to deal with their anger. So I feel its your site and you can do with it what you want. This is not a free speech issue. If a person wants to attack you or your fans then they can open their own website and attack you there. In the end its your site and your rules.
Stolen from the old Warren Ellis Forum on Delphi and what the rules of any forum or blog should be:
Rules: Were strict and enforced with ruthlessness and a stark lack of fairness. They worked very well. “All freedom of speech ends here/Warren Ellis makes all rules to preserve order/use your real name/order is enforced ruthlessly/do not question the moderators/be pure/be vigilant/behave”
End of rules.
And yes I do know how bad the Ellis forum got for anyone not in Ellis’s good graces but that’s not the point here.
The point is if you don’t want to play nice, you will leave.
Let me just state for the record: “I…AM SPARTACUS!!” (hee)
In my opinion, if PAD put forth a political belief/opinion I objected to, I would respond with a “I think you’re wrong here and here’s why” answer. Getting more and more frustrated because I’m not turning Peter around and because every other poster agrees with PAD (duh, that’s why most of them follow him & his site–you don’t go to a party where you expect you won’t like the company)is a tiresome and useless exercise. If I felt PAD insulted me out of turn for just expressing an opposing viewpoint, I would lose respect for him and probably not post again and patronize another site where I thought my individual opinions were more valued. However, I have yet to see that here and Peter gets props from me for even posing the question and valuing our opinions rather than just “doing it because he can”.
Did anyone say “Fair and Balanced”?
And I have to agree with possibly putting the poster name up front (especially after reading this thread and reading some people going over the same point relentlessly with a “why aren’t they listening to me” desperateness that is embarrassing).
Hey, who is “George Bush,” anyway?
Nevermind, I’ll go look at some lesbians.
PAD, I believe there was a time many years ago in an early BID column – correct me if I’m wrong – when you stated something to the effect of freedom of speech being exactly what it is and attempting to make an exception undercuts that right. Then there were all these complaints about others complaining. Don’t get me wrong, you were correct in responding to them the way you did and I felt badly for you, but – let’s face it – it turns out your initial statement suddenly contradicted. Then came your thoughts on the McFarlane/Twist case and, again, I agreed with you because (as was said many times) this involved slander. Now you have this current matter to consider. So I think it’s safe to say there ARE exceptions to freedom of speech via your original statement.
And besides, it’s your website anyway, so why bother polling us? I have a feeling you may already have something in mind and if we vote against it, you can always disregard in the end whatever we say. Let us not also forget the future may hold exceptions.
Face it, there’s jerks everywhere you go, and your site is your house. You have every right to throw out anyone you want, even if it’s no one. What difference does it make what we say?
Oh please please PLEASE don’t kick me out!! I don’t want to be left in the cold!!!! No! No!!! NOOO!!!
It’s difficult to vote, not knowing fully what YOUR commitment to free speech is. If it is the blanket “everybody is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion” commitment, then yes, excluding posters represents a clear conflict. However, keep in mind that the root of the constitution’s First Amendment free speech clause was intended to apply specifically to political opinion. Of course, as everyone knows, it has mutated into something very different over so many years, and bent to fit almost every form of expression, today, whether political or not. So, if your take on free speech is in accord with that intended by the framers of the constitution, then the vote should swing to no. This is your party, you are the gracious host, and you and your work deserve great respect. Throw the bums out.
YES – absolutely, of course. You can lay down some behaviour guidelines or rules or whatever, sure – but YOU opened this place, YOU decided to allow people to comment and debate. You can’t only expect love, and some people are gonna be jerks. The price of freedom, the price of fame. Allowing only safe, pleasant people who will say they adore your work in, is no grounds for any sort of anything interesting and is very Pravdaic.
And throwing out people on the basis of disagreeing with the majority? I’m looking for words and can’t find them.
OK, strike that last part – (I didn’t read the replies before posting – but it was really poorly phrased up there in your entry, Peter). But the vote is still yes.