Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:25:01 -0500 From: Nobody In Particular <someonenospamthere.com> Subject: Re: SAAB INFO WEBSITE
Well said and I now understand the "banned" comment. I blame the media for causing a split in our country. They fuel the fire that burns brightly and when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they first deny it, then apologize in a manner that smells worse than the original story. When all you see is bad news, you need to suspect the bias of those reporting the news. I'm an optimist, I believe things will be better tomorrow than they were today. I refuse to swing my vote to a candidate who has a platform based on fear and what "might" happen. This election is just plain nasty. You want to talk about disenfranchised, I hate turning on the TV because it's one side bad mouthing the other - they are both guilty! It's unfortunate that we have no real "choice" to base our vote on. It's either the status quo or vote for a change, which is not much better than the status quo! I want to vote FOR someone not AGAINST someone! People who are basing their vote entirely along party lines, based on reports from the one sided media, or a hate filled statement by an actor, they are uninformed voters. Voters owe it to themselves to research the truth, never trust what you read in the newspaper or see on TV, verify it before you claim it's true. I'll step off the soapbox now - sorry group, I needed to vent. I'm still looking for a front driver's side fender and driver's door. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:16:46 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: >in article u1ddn0ptnhnugd1ck46q0p2oeml3j3qh9pnospamcom, Nobody In Particular >at someonenospamthere.com wrote on 20/10/2004 20:00: > >> I doubt you will be able to get this removed from the archives. For >> the most part this message would disappear from most news servers >> within a week. As long as we continue to reply to this thread, the >> origional message will stay alive. >> >> Freedom of speach is a great freedom that comes with the ultimate >> power to ignore the speaker. I would rather have the freedom of >> speach and have to deal with a few posts that irritate me, as opposed >> to being censored. >> >> Freedom of speach means you must give your opponent the opportunity to >> express his views. If you're not willing to do that, the you need to >> keep quiet too. > >Indeed! The pleasure of having freedom to speak inherently contains the >responsibility not to deny others their right to speak back. The guy in >question owns his website and chooses to allow other people onto it - if you >go to someone's barbeque, he has a right to kick you out. This guy, however, >also archives *my* words - he's running a public firework display and I find >that quite distasteful that he kicks people out without reason or >explanantion. > >Other BBs ... Oh, and Usenet, have a solid sense of internationalism and are >quite capable of moderating themselves by good behaviour and a public >telling off when people step over the line. I have seen someone breech one >T&C quite badly on one BB, but he apologised and the affected people >accepted the apology. He was allowed to stay on the board (after several >affected people were contacted) ... He wasn't outright banned, but a level >headed, adult consensus was reached. He was a "moderator" too and should >have known better, but drink and high spirits can get the better of us all >some times!!! > >On a wider note, I find it quite uplifting that people from all over the >world with different languages, cultures, experiences and expectations can >come together on a BB or Usenet and discuss matters of common interest. I'm >ashamed that as singular nations we cannot seem to do that. > >Paul
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
