Michael Clark Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 4 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said: I would sure wonder why the person I was doing research with was not posting for himself. And I also love how this post is all flowery words for the Admins, but that your case, of course, is different. (Not.) Kathy, when I was working with Tom there was no rule against what I was doing, and I like quite a few others, I am sure, have no Idea how deep these schisms go. I did not repost language and invectives against admin or members from other forums. It’s quite different. And seriously, are we never supposed to repost existing EF posts from banned members. It just gets so complicated that I find it unfortunate. And here I feel like I have run afoul with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kozlowski Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 29 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said: Michael, There is no problem using old EF threads by banned members. What we mean is current and not- previously-posted here type of thing. If someone is banned that means that's it, and posting vicariously through another member defeats the whole purpose of banning. The person loses the privilege of posting, whether "language and invectives" or no. I'm still confused about this rule. Does the banned person have to be mentioned? Say I agree with a subject the banned member posted on another forum and I wanted to bring the topic here to discuss. I have no connection with any of the banned members and dont even know who any of them are to be honest except for 1 or 2. Would I be penalized for bringing up the subject without mentioning a name if I wish to to discuss it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 11 hours ago, Joseph McBride said: I don't agree with the idea of banning anybody from posting. Particularly on a forum such as this one, we should take great care to support the First Amendment. There are legal limitations to free speech (such as libel), but unpopular opinions or ones most people consider wrong-headed or offensive (such as some of James Fetzer's) should not be considered cause for banning. Sometimes we can learn from opinions we do not agree with; sometimes people can be wrong-headed much of the time but still have some valuable views at other times (as Fetzer, for example, has). Personal insults and ad hominem attacks should be discouraged, in my view, but otherwise unpopular views should be welcomed. "New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." -- George Bernard Shaw Much madness is divinest Sense- To a discerning Eye- Much Sense- the starkest Madness- 'Tis the Majority- In this, as All, prevail- Assent-and you are sane- Demur-you're straightway dangerous--- And handled with a Chain- -Emily Dickinson (poem 435), c. 1862 Heard someone on another venue state they saw this on a protest sign during an event back in the 1960's "I would rather have questions without answers...than answers without questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts