The who should be Mod and Mod Issues Thread

[JohnR! 5,495]

Well you are korrect also. In the end it is a private forum. So we all basically agreed Danno got nuked for his opinions not because of TOS.

Comparing his opinions to Mein Kampf is a bit of stretch

IMHO he was nuked because of breach of TOS. In any case, it is immaterial, because Ewok could ban anyone of us at will - it is his house after all.

Alas, my comparison to Mein Kampt was germane. There are countless passages in Main Kampf that could be posted in this forum and stay well within the TOS; which does not mean they belong here.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Gegel

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

and Marvin you are just as far to the other extreme. So many of your posts are about how the white man is repsoible for everything wrong in the black community today or you post some example of racism or what you think is racism, as if to say it's universal. You guys are two sides of the same coin.

Not saying that to be critical, heck I have learned a few things. I am just saying you are as far to an extreme as Danno, but you are also polite and respectful and stay with the tOS. I respect your opinions and would probably be in the middle somewhere.

My only point is that Danno was guilty of nothing but having outdated, unpopular opinions.

Global warming will kill us all in 2 years

There better ?

If you found that bar so nauseous why didn't you leave wen it closed. just saying

My thing is there is SOME form of racism there. We've agreed that it's both sides that have a problem. Danno would never come to believe this, his entire premise was it's black people's fault.

I've told Danno to go join a black website, because he seems all too eager to put us down to a bunch of white people who couldn't care less. Not saying folks here aren't nice and don't care, but if you want change(like he swore he did) preach to the people, not the choir.

[Teddy B 17,251]

My thing is there is SOME form of racism there. We've agreed that it's both sides that have a problem. Danno would never come to believe this, his entire premise was it's black people's fault.

I've told Danno to go join a black website, because he seems all too eager to put us down to a bunch of white people who couldn't care less. Not saying folks here aren't nice and don't care, but if you want change(like he swore he did) preach to the people, not the choir.

I blame it all on this guy movin on up.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I blame it all on this guy movin on up.

I heard on a talk show that George made the way for Obama to become president. After it was explained, I found myself actually agreeing with it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I heard on a talk show that George made the way for Obama to become president. After it was explained, I found myself actually agreeing with it.

That is just a ruse by the media.

Obama's political path has been a vital part of the vast, huge, incommensurable and Brobdingnagian left wing conspiracy for decades now... :rofl:

On a serious note, our country being one where television has such an influence, I can easily see he connection. Norman Lear is quite the daredevil.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Gegel

[JohnR! 5,495]

Here is an interesting read on this subject. It should help clarify a few misconceptions:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-assembly

Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others’ private property?

Generally no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

However, a few states have interpreted their own state constitutions to provide even greater free-speech protection than the federal Constitution offers. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls.

[Karee 4,190]

Truth.

You are both correct, all the while you seem to leave out the fact this is still a private forum and in a way, as Kathryn (?) explained in another thread, it is gauged and evaluated by its content. Private forums are not vehicles for free speech, thence the very existence of moderators.

Danno's opinions were not simply unpopular and outdated, so much as they were full or prejudice for specific groups. In this sense, his opinions were as unpopular and outdated as those found on Mein Kampf. Had he stayed compliant to the TOS which regulate this forum, he would still be here, but IMHO his ship sailed when his every thread was about the same subjects. Anyone unfamiliar with this forum might be forgiven for getting the wrong idea if a internet search revealed an association between this site and countless posts containing objectionable speech - in 2014 America - by one of its members.

How much room would a fundamentalist christian, in his own home, give to an atheist who took the floor to proselytize about its views on religion?

How much leeway would you give, in your own home, to sexually charged innuendo, during a children's party?

How much welcoming would you be to a KKK member testifying endlessly in your church?

Free speech is certainly nice, but it only really works well when coupled with sense of occasion, and some of the allegedly banned members lacked the latter.

If that's the case, then it would seem that folks here should only post opinions that VJ moderation agrees with. For example I feel that Quebec should be separate from Canada. I'm sure there's English speaking Canadian moderators here that find that opinion outdated and unpopular. Should any of my comments regarding this subject be censored? Who decides what is unpopular and outdated? While some may not agree with Danno's threads, most of them did spur a fair amount of debate.

BTW, Vive Quebec Libre!!

[Teddy B 17,251]

If that's the case, then it would seem that folks here should only post opinions that VJ moderation agrees with. For example I feel that Quebec should be separate from Canada. I'm sure there's English speaking Canadian moderators here that find that opinion outdated and unpopular. Should any of my comments regarding this subject be censored? Who decides what is unpopular and outdated? While some may not agree with Danno's threads, most of them did spur a fair amount of debate.

BTW, Vive Quebec Libre!!

Yes and you should be banished to the desolate farming villages of Quebec to spend eternity with unshaven French Canadian women.

[JohnR! 5,495]

If that's the case, then it would seem that folks here should only post opinions that VJ moderation agrees with. For example I feel that Quebec should be separate from Canada. I'm sure there's English speaking Canadian moderators here that find that opinion outdated and unpopular. Should any of my comments regarding this subject be censored? Who decides what is unpopular and outdated? While some may not agree with Danno's threads, most of them did spur a fair amount of debate.

BTW, Vive Quebec Libre!!

I would say that folks here should post opinions that can be discussed rationally and positively. I am sure you can discuss Quebec's sovereignty in this forum ad nauseam, but I suspect your endeavor would be limited were you to justify your opinion on subjective foundations, rather than otherwise.

I can see where no strong objection would be made if you were to make a case for secession based on its cultural ties or political designs. I would bet you however, your thread would be short lived were you to justify your position on purported racial superiority; or on the absence or excess of people of a certain color, gender, religion or sexual orientation on one side of the equation.

Again, it is more about common sense than free speech.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Gegel

[JohnR! 5,495]

Yes and you should be banished to the desolate farming villages of Quebec to spend eternity with unshaven French Canadian women.

Trois Rivieres shall rise from the ashes!

[Karee 4,190]

I would say that folks here should post opinions that can be discussed rationally and positively. I am sure you can discuss Quebec's sovereignty in this forum ad nauseam, but I suspect your endeavor would be limited were you to justify your opinion on subjective foundations, rather than otherwise.

I can see where no strong objection would be made if you were to make a case for secession based on its cultural ties or political designs. I would bet you however, your thread would be short lived were you to justify your position on purported racial superiority; or on the absence or excess of people of a certain color, gender, religion or sexual orientation on one side of the equation.

Again, it is more about common sense than free speech.

Can someone please translate the above for me?

ETA: Just an FYI, throwing in a bunch of big words etc. doesn't make your point any stronger. We get it. You went to school.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Karee

[UncleBeer 244]

it would seem that folks here should only post opinions that VJ moderation agrees with.

At least one moderator here is definitely onboard with that. I was hoping the 'overhaul' would fix that, but no joy as of yet...

[JohnR! 5,495]

Can someone please translate the above for me?

I am sure someone can. I don't speak Thai and I am not very confident Google translator would provide you with what you seek.

[Karee 4,190]

I am sure someone can. I don't speak Thai and I am not very confident Google translator would provide you with what you seek.

English would be just fine.

[JohnR! 5,495]

English would be just fine.

From what language? I am not sure I follow.