I'm Not Perfect

[funkejay 0]

Bah. I think you do a good job. As I've said before, I see this as a virtual pub with you and the other mods as the bartenders/bouncers. You make your judgment calls and toss someone from the bar when you feel they are getting to be a disruptive drunk. Maybe you'll make a mistake or two, but mostly you won't. You've got enough years and experience with people on you that I trust your judgment in such matters. Maybe I see your point of view better because I'm from the same culture as you.............

Although I like both you and Bruce, I couldn't disagree more Mike. This is not a pub. This is a forum. If no where else, forums such as this should at least be places of tolerance where free speech is the rule.

I wasn't here when this Sh#t broke loose, and missed all of it - but nothing in my opinion would ever justify "banning" anyone from this forum. I appreciate that Cav may have been offended by something that was said (and I agree that equal measures of tolerance and sensitivity can usually avoid most conflicts), but nevertheless it is his right to express his dissatisfaction in any way he sees fit. If his posts in turn offended the mods, so be it. That's the price of living in a free society - and you Yanks should appreciate that more than anyone. After all - your history is full of struggles to free yourselves from the yoke of oppression.

Hell, your country is supposedly fighting a war to bring that freedom to the world......

Shame on all of you....

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Ah, now we're down to my level again After your 'film' analogy I couldn't help thinking that this has become a bit like Dirty Rotten Scoundrels whilst someone else is stuck in Groundhog Day.....

*Anal - ogy/orgy is very close to one aspect of Eintein's Theory of Forum Threads, which broadly speaking is connected to the theory that light bends, leaving a gaping black hole; which can be ripped assunder by Mr Big in the showers if you bend down for the soap.

Anyway, I digress.

Yes, this light bending thing - when used in context to a thread in this particular space time continuum (forum), means that if you keep banging on about the same old sh1te, others ignore you (aka light bending to avoid the large hole), the subject-eer then disappears up their own black hole.

*This asterisk means that this is NOT real. It is completely made up and not true, a complete load of bollocks in fact. A downright lie written by a person enduring a boring lunch break. I would also like to point out that no animals were hurt during the making of this thread. Except a small pussy.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA Your post are always a delight to read!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Although I like both you and Bruce, I couldn't disagree more Mike. This is not a pub. This is a forum. If no where else, forums such as this should at least be places of tolerance where free speech is the rule.

I wasn't here when this Sh#t broke loose, and missed all of it - but nothing in my opinion would ever justify "banning" anyone from this forum. I appreciate that Cav may have been offended by something that was said (and I agree that equal measures of tolerance and sensitivity can usually avoid most conflicts), but nevertheless it is his right to express his dissatisfaction in any way he sees fit. If his posts in turn offended the mods, so be it. That's the price of living in a free society - and you Yanks should appreciate that more than anyone. After all - your history is full of struggles to free yourselves from the yoke of oppression.

Hell, your country is supposedly fighting a war to bring that freedom to the world......

Shame on all of you....

Why do we have to be so politically-correct all the time. Pumpdoc starts the thread "I'm not perfect", neither are you and me. Yes, you're right free speech is the rule, but without a certain amount of authority, what do you expect this place to be. In a free society there is a still a thing called jail, a place where people are kept in check, rightly so. Now in an international forum,where do we set the boundaries? Or do we just offer the chance to use the power of free speech to abuse people as we see fit. You're right , YOU were not there when it all started, Pumpdoc was, and he had to deal with all the Sh#t and abuse posters threw at each other. Maybe you should trust his judgement as most of us have entrusted the mods to, read the thread, almost everybody is happy with our mods.....majority rules.

[dribbler 6]

Ah, now we're down to my level again After your 'film' analogy I couldn't help thinking that this has become a bit like Dirty Rotten Scoundrels whilst someone else is stuck in Groundhog Day.....

I was a getting an 'Apocalypse Now' vibe myself.

PD: Where are you from Cav'?

C: I'm from India sir

PD: Are you an assassin?

C: I'm a forum member sir

PD: You are neither. You are an errand boy sent by the Indian mafia to collect the bill.

C: I am on a classified agenda sir

PD: It's no longer classified though, is it?

*Cue 'The End' by The Doors, cut to Cavallino wielding an axe chasing Pumpdoc in his green racing car. Dennis Hopper takes pictures.

[Medilloni 6]

I was a getting an 'Apocalypse Now' vibe myself.

PD: Where are you from Cav'?

C: I'm from India sir

PD: Are you an assassin?

C: I'm a forum member sir

PD: You are neither. You are an errand boy sent by the Indian mafia to collect the bill.

C: I am on a classified agenda sir

PD: It's no longer classified though, is it?

*Cue 'The End' by The Doors, cut to Cavallino wielding an axe chasing Pumpdoc in his green racing car. Dennis Hopper takes pictures.

I like it!! Maybe soupcon of Catch 22 for the darker humoured?

[Autumnpuma 0]

Although I like both you and Bruce, I couldn't disagree more Mike. This is not a pub. This is a forum. If no where else, forums such as this should at least be places of tolerance where free speech is the rule.

I wasn't here when this Sh#t broke loose, and missed all of it - but nothing in my opinion would ever justify "banning" anyone from this forum. I appreciate that Cav may have been offended by something that was said (and I agree that equal measures of tolerance and sensitivity can usually avoid most conflicts), but nevertheless it is his right to express his dissatisfaction in any way he sees fit. If his posts in turn offended the mods, so be it. That's the price of living in a free society - and you Yanks should appreciate that more than anyone. After all - your history is full of struggles to free yourselves from the yoke of oppression.

Hell, your country is supposedly fighting a war to bring that freedom to the world......

Shame on all of you....

My analogy to a pub is more correct than you perhaps think, Jay. In a real pub you have an owner who then hires a bartender (or manager) and opens the place up for patrons. The pub owner expresses to the bartender what sort of atmosphere he wants for the pub and the bartender makes sure that happens. If a patron of the pub gets too rowdy, the bartender warns, or in extreme cases, bounces him/her. It's all based on the judgment of the bartender which in turn is based on the owner. You can test this: go to your local pub and abuse the bartender and report back to me what happened. You'll start to see just how close my analogy really is.....

I completely understand, and agree with, the concept of 'free speech'. I also understand that this forum, and many others, are not forums of true free speech, much like a local pub is not a forum of true free speech. There are written rules and unwritten rules that govern most arenas where people choose to gather, and you must be smart enough to comprehend what those are (and willing enough to abide by them) to get along in any given arena.

On a personal note, I hope you start posting more; I miss your insight!

[Max Mosley 2]

Yes, I miss Jay's posts too. They are, without fail, thought-provoking, intelligent and well-argued. I've said already that personally I can conceive of circumstances where I might support some form of warning/censorship, in extreme cases where a poster clearly has no other aim than to disrupt the forum. But they would have to be extreme cases indeed. People must have the right to express offensive views, even racist, misogynistic or homophobic views and I have recently defended someone who posted just such nonsense (in between insulting me ). I've also requested that the right to cuss members be reinstated. People these days are far too cavalier about free speech. Having said that, this forum does a better job than most of permitting free speech. Do you know many forums where a freer approach is taken Jay?

[dribbler 6]

Click, fizz......glug glug glug glug.

Gulp, swallow, gulp, swallow.....ahhhh.

[ykickamoocow 0]

Yes, I miss Jay's posts too. They are, without fail, thought-provoking, intelligent and well-argued.

But you would say the same thing about my posts wouldnt you Murray

[Quiet One 15]

Click, fizz......glug glug glug glug.

Gulp, swallow, gulp, swallow.....ahhhh.

You should get banned for that!

[Max Mosley 2]

But you would say the same thing about my posts wouldnt you Murray

Of course my friend. I wouldn't dare argue with a moo cow!

[Max Mosley 2]

You should get banned for that!

Indeed. It's the irresponsible promotion of either alcoholism or another practice involving the eager swallowing of fluids. Neither should be acceptable on a forum full of impressionable young moo cows and the like!

[funkejay 0]

Why do we have to be so politically-correct all the time. Pumpdoc starts the thread "I'm not perfect", neither are you and me. Yes, you're right free speech is the rule, but without a certain amount of authority, what do you expect this place to be. In a free society there is a still a thing called jail, a place where people are kept in check, rightly so. Now in an international forum,where do we set the boundaries? Or do we just offer the chance to use the power of free speech to abuse people as we see fit. You're right , YOU were not there when it all started, Pumpdoc was, and he had to deal with all the Sh#t and abuse posters threw at each other. Maybe you should trust his judgement as most of us have entrusted the mods to, read the thread, almost everybody is happy with our mods.....majority rules.

You're right, one shouldn't think for oneself, just trust the judgement of the majority.......

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

My analogy to a pub is more correct than you perhaps think, Jay. In a real pub you have an owner who then hires a bartender (or manager) and opens the place up for patrons. The pub owner expresses to the bartender what sort of atmosphere he wants for the pub and the bartender makes sure that happens. If a patron of the pub gets too rowdy, the bartender warns, or in extreme cases, bounces him/her. It's all based on the judgment of the bartender which in turn is based on the owner. You can test this: go to your local pub and abuse the bartender and report back to me what happened. You'll start to see just how close my analogy really is.....

I completely understand, and agree with, the concept of 'free speech'. I also understand that this forum, and many others, are not forums of true free speech, much like a local pub is not a forum of true free speech. There are written rules and unwritten rules that govern most arenas where people choose to gather, and you must be smart enough to comprehend what those are (and willing enough to abide by them) to get along in any given arena.

On a personal note, I hope you start posting more; I miss your insight!

Hi Mike, it's been busy lately so I haven't had much time.... but I'm concerned with how stifling the atmosphere around here has become. Censorship was always a bit of a concern on this site, but it appears to be enjoying an much freer leash than ever before.

As for you pub analogy (your hilarious views on the etymology of the word aside), I don't entirely agree. A pub is a private business that exists solely to make a profit by creating a convivial atmosphere in which to sell its product. As a result, the atmosphere of the pub is not the product itself, it is the mechanism by which you persuade your clients to remain and continue to purchase your product (more booze). (I worked full time in pubs and bars for almost a decade both before and during all my college years, so I'm pretty familiar with their operation.) As a result, it is an extremely controlled environment, and virtually anything, and I mean anything, that interferes with the stated purpose of selling more product will result in your rather expiditious removal from the premises.

This is most certainly not a pub, and although I recognize that this website (like all others) is a commercial venture, I genuinely hope (perhaps naively) that this forum does not exist purely to sell advertising space to sponsors. It is presented as a forum in which we are invited to discuss issues relating primarily to F1, but also other topics of interest to members. As a result of this stated purpose, it presupposes that there should be a far broader latitude towards the free exchange of ideas - even those ideas that challenge and offend us - and particularly those that challenge or offend the mods.

As an aside, it should also be pointed out that of all the people I met who own and operate bars, pubs, clubs, etc. - they were not, as a group, a particularly high minded one, and certainly gave little consideration to the value of free speech within our society. If that is the model to which we are to aspire, I fear for all of us!!!!

In the end, I'm a little dissappointed at the permissive attitude towards censorship that seems to pervade the forum, but I'm very surprised by how many of our American members share that sentiment. For citizens of a nation that so loudly and boldly trumpet the virtues of a free society, it shocks me how willing many of you are to stifle any speech that you deem offensive, disruptive, or disturbing.

In short, if you don't have thick enough skin to put up with abuse - don't be a mod. I've been called all manner of names on this site at one point or another for my outspoken views on many matters, and I've never once complained to anyone about it. In fact, I was just called an "a## with no tail" today by one member, and I thought it was hilarious!!!!

Yes, I miss Jay's posts too. They are, without fail, thought-provoking, intelligent and well-argued. I've said already that personally I can conceive of circumstances where I might support some form of warning/censorship, in extreme cases where a poster clearly has no other aim than to disrupt the forum. But they would have to be extreme cases indeed. People must have the right to express offensive views, even racist, misogynistic or homophobic views and I have recently defended someone who posted just such nonsense (in between insulting me ). I've also requested that the right to cuss members be reinstated. People these days are far too cavalier about free speech. Having said that, this forum does a better job than most of permitting free speech. Do you know many forums where a freer approach is taken Jay?

To be honest, this is the only forum I ever visit, so I'm not a particularly good barometer for the levels of permissiveness that exist on other sites.

[Autumnpuma 0]

In short, if you don't have thick enough skin to put up with abuse - don't be a mod. I've been called all manner of names on this site at one point or another for my outspoken views on many matters, and I've never once complained to anyone about it. In fact, I was just called an "a## with no tail" today by one member, and I thought it was hilarious!!!!

To be honest, this is the only forum I ever visit, so I'm not a particularly good barometer for the levels of permissiveness that exist on other sites.

I'll not argue for censorship or against free speech, but I'll just point out that arenas where free speech exist in purity are rare, and if you've found one, point me towards it!! I hesitate to use a gross generality, but as I've not found any dainty ones, the gross will have to do: All gatherings of people have sets of behavioral rules that are enforced by the group or by an elected member of the group. Anthropologically it's always been that way, and ever will be. This forum has the mods, who 'govern' by their interpretation of the forum rules. Some are heavy-handed, others are more laid-back. Not one of them, on any forum, is objective. They are guys or gals that do their best with a voluntary job. Mistakes come with the territory.

Cav's one-man crusade against the mods here is admirable in principle, but naive in practical terms. Were I him, I would simply stop antagonizing the mods and develop a thicker skin in the face of hostile ideas that Ctrl300 has hurled at him. It's by that behavior that we become a forum of free ideas. Taking care of one's own 'problem' is at the heart of freedom. To run to a mod is to invite bans, and stiffer rules, and more oversight. Cav's crusade for 'fairness' will harm the very ideals of free speech that some are arguing for.

I've been to speedTV, atlasF1, F1Technical and a whole bunch of other, non F1-related, forums and this is by far the most 'free' of the lot. That's why I've logged up so many posts here and why I continue to stick around. A completely free forum of ideas this is not, but, pragmatically, it's the best I've found.

(Jay, I agree 100% with you on free speech, but I also accept there are rules (both written and unwritten) governing behavior on this forum. I try not to antagonize the mods and be as polite as I can [failing sometimes]. I handle aggression and offensive posts in my own way and do not involve the moderators.)

Cheers!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

On a personal note, I hope you start posting more; I miss your insight!

Same here Funkejay, I thought the reason you went awol you might be overcrowded with those court cases....

[cavallino 2]

Cav's one-man crusade against the mods here is admirable in principle, but naive in practical terms. Were I him, I would simply stop antagonizing the mods and develop a thicker skin in the face of hostile ideas that Ctrl300 has hurled at him. It's by that behavior that we become a forum of free ideas. Taking care of one's own 'problem' is at the heart of freedom. To run to a mod is to invite bans, and stiffer rules, and more oversight. Cav's crusade for 'fairness' will harm the very ideals of free speech that some are arguing for.

Do you have to misrepresent me every single time, I shall just have to do a copy paste to give my position yet again:

First of all, contrary to what a lot of people have assumed, the issue does not lie with that one member. As I said, if we were allowed true free speech in this forum, I wouldn't be complaining. It wouldn't be the greatest idea in my opinion, I have seen froums like that and frankly, they go to the dogs. Perhaps though, with the kind of members we have we would avoid that fate.

We don't have that though. We don't have free speech. Fair enough, certain kinds of posts are deemed to be unsuitable for the forum, for various reasons - kids and people at work may view the forum, certain poata may offend members, we don't want uncivilised behaviour on the forum, etc. Which is all well and good, I doubt if any reasonable member would object and I doubt if anyone can claim that their right to express themselves is impinged upon by these restrictions.Which is the way most forums, or most successful forums work. Which, on the surface at least is the system we have here. However, it doesn't quite work that way here. Never has, but things have just become unacceptably bad of late.

A fundamental requirement of a moderated forum would of course be a consistent set of rules, or principles that would be applied, fairly and equally to every post that may need some kind of action. We never had those rules, instead it has been left to the moderators to decide as they see fit.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me I am 'anti-free speech'. And I wish some people would realise the hypocrisy of telling me to 'grow a thick skin' and ignore offensive remarks against me. Yet when a mod decides to ban me, it is not the mod who is told to grow a thick skin, instead I am told that I 'brought it upon myself'.

Please criticize me, disagree all you want, but do not consistently misrepresent me. Unfortunately people actually read your posts here, perhaps more than mine.

[funkejay 0]

I'll not argue for censorship or against free speech, but I'll just point out that arenas where free speech exist in purity are rare, and if you've found one, point me towards it........

(Jay, I agree 100% with you on free speech, but I also accept there are rules (both written and unwritten) governing behavior on this forum. I try not to antagonize the mods and be as polite as I can [failing sometimes]. I handle aggression and offensive posts in my own way and do not involve the moderators.)

Cheers!

Always good to hear what you have to say Mike. Your posts are consistently eloquent and born of an absolutely thourough intellect.

I guess my point is that although arenas of free speech are rare (and perhaps mythical), we should never use that as an excuse for censorship. My position (though it may not be shared by many) is that we should always strive for completely free speech, unfettered by the exigencies of oversight which inevitably involves some level of personal bias and prejudice.

And while I accept that this may be the best example of that in the world of F1 forums, that does not mean that we should merely be satisfied with the status quo.

Same here Funkejay, I thought the reason you went awol you might be overcrowded with those court cases....

Absolutely right Brad......

Do you have to misrepresent me every single time, I shall just have to do a copy paste to give my position yet again:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me I am 'anti-free speech'. And I wish some people would realise the hypocrisy of telling me to 'grow a thick skin' and ignore offensive remarks against me. Yet when a mod decides to ban me, it is not the mod who is told to grow a thick skin, instead I am told that I 'brought it upon myself'.

Please criticize me, disagree all you want, but do not consistently misrepresent me. Unfortunately people actually read your posts here, perhaps more than mine.

Cav, rest assured that you're not the only one to have noticed the inconsistency in positions taken by some members (and mods), or the hypocrisy in their criticisms of you.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Do you have to misrepresent me every single time, I shall just have to do a copy paste to give my position yet again:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me I am 'anti-free speech'. And I wish some people would realise the hypocrisy of telling me to 'grow a thick skin' and ignore offensive remarks against me. Yet when a mod decides to ban me, it is not the mod who is told to grow a thick skin, instead I am told that I 'brought it upon myself'.

Please criticize me, disagree all you want, but do not consistently misrepresent me. Unfortunately people actually read your posts here, perhaps more than mine.

I'm not misrepresenting you. I agree that some people are banned for a minor offense and some are not banned when they rightly should have been (according to this forum's rules, that we all agreed to when we created an account here). I understand your desire for either full free speech here (which means you would not have been banned for your minor temper demonstration )or an equal and fair enforcement of the rules (Ctrl300 would have been banned at the first objectionable post). I get that. I've moved past it to look at the greater issue at hand, as I see it.

Now my take on it: You, I, and everyone else (mods included) should have, as Jay said, a thick skin and be able to take abuse without running to the moderators. The reason I believe this is because when you constantly run to the moderators seeking 'fairness', what you get is more draconian rules governing behaviour. That is not in the best interests of this forum or in the best interests of furthering free speech. If you have a problem with the moderation, go to the site owner. If nothing is done, then you have a choice to make 1) stay and participate, trying to abide by the unwritten rules that govern this place or 2) leave. The choice, and power, rest with each of us, not with the moderators.

I stand on the side of less rules and personal accountability. I want to know that when I respond to an abusive post, my tone and demeanor comes from me, not from fear of being banned. If I'm ever banned for something, then I'll buck up and take note of what caused the ban, and try to not repeat it. I will not do what you are doing, however, and seek to draw the forum into an issue that is yours, and yours alone, to deal with.

I will state again, Cav, that I understand what you are saying, and in principle sympathize with you, but I do not agree with your choice of resolution.

[Quiet One 15]

Oh well, I might as well give all this a try too

1) On freedom of speech:

LIMITS!!! Ahh, what a fearful word! Limits!!! Yet, there is no true freedom without limits, unless you are the only person in the whole universe. Of course, the fewer limits we have, the happier we would feel...in theory. Every society (and I consider the forum as a small society), needs certain rules. Freedom of speech? Of course! Viva la freedom of speech! But...every society has the right and the duty to defend itself. Posting links to children abuse sites is allowed? What about offering drug deals over the forum? Planning terrorist attacks??? I asume we all agree that those are absolut limits. Freedom of speech does not supersede other rights. You may say those are gross examples, yet they establish a boundary that I think (hope) none of us would ever cross.

2) On Cavallino:

I think that what he is asking for (in his own, argumentative, complex and circumvoluted way) is a set of clear rules. Here is just a matter of taste. Personally, I think that there are no real double standards. There is one standard and it just doesn't conforms everybody. In that respect, I pity the mods for having to deal with that. On the other side, it is common for mods (everywhere) to act faster against someone when they are personally attacked than when others are attacked. It's just a natural reaction. The rest of us mortals act the same. Ctrl300's anti-semitic innuendos against me raised less controversy than his attacks against muslims or Indians just because there aren't many jewish descendants around. Personally, I would not ask for a set of rules. Rules should be simple and obvious (like banning cases as the ones i mentioned in point 1). Gray areas could be easily be discussed amongst members (we are just a bunch of guys, not millions).

Cavallino might be as annoying as wearing an astronaut suit with a bumblebee trapped inside with his posts, yet he is trying to communicate something. I don't agree with him at all, but I recognize his right to post his ideas and they deserve to be discussed. Ctrl300 was just trying to p**s everybody off. He was not trying to convey anything and as such, banning him is just the same as banning a spammer.

[funkejay 0]

Well done Mike and Quiet Guy (sorry, I don't know your 'real' name as I've been gone for a while and see that you joined during my most recent extended absence!!!!) - I just read the last two posts and must admit that they are both equally thoughtful and thought provoking.....

[Autumnpuma 0]

Ctrl300's anti-semitic innuendos against me raised less controversy than his attacks against muslims or Indians just because there aren't many jewish descendants around.

I would say you demonstrated my position nicely. Instead of making a public fuss about it, you deflected Ctrl300 in your own clever (and humorous) way, without calling for help that would, potentially, create a more rule-ridden forum. No ban was called for, or needed.

EDIT: Jay, your posts on free speech are classics and should be posted everywhere there is room for it. Bajo recently re-posted your thoughts from an older, longer thread and they are worth reviewing every so often; much like an ancient mariner reviews his trusty astrolabe to make sure he's sailing the right path.

[pabloh20 1]

Oh well, I might as well give all this a try too

1) On freedom of speech:

LIMITS!!! Ahh, what a fearful word! Limits!!! Yet, there is no true freedom without limits, unless you are the only person in the whole universe. Of course, the fewer limits we have, the happier we would feel...in theory. Every society (and I consider the forum as a small society), needs certain rules. Freedom of speech? Of course! Viva la freedom of speech! But...every society has the right and the duty to defend itself. Posting links to children abuse sites is allowed? What about offering drug deals over the forum? Planning terrorist attacks??? I asume we all agree that those are absolut limits. Freedom of speech does not supersede other rights. You may say those are gross examples, yet they establish a boundary that I think (hope) none of us would ever cross.

2) On Cavallino:

I think that what he is asking for (in his own, argumentative, complex and circumvoluted way) is a set of clear rules. Here is just a matter of taste. Personally, I think that there are no real double standards. There is one standard and it just doesn't conforms everybody. In that respect, I pity the mods for having to deal with that. On the other side, it is common for mods (everywhere) to act faster against someone when they are personally attacked than when others are attacked. It's just a natural reaction. The rest of us mortals act the same. Ctrl300's anti-semitic innuendos against me raised less controversy than his attacks against muslims or Indians just because there aren't many jewish descendants around. Personally, I would not ask for a set of rules. Rules should be simple and obvious (like banning cases as the ones i mentioned in point 1). Gray areas could be easily be discussed amongst members (we are just a bunch of guys, not millions).

Cavallino might be as annoying as wearing an astronaut suit with a bumblebee trapped inside with his posts, yet he is trying to communicate something. I don't agree with him at all, but I recognize his right to post his ideas and they deserve to be discussed. Ctrl300 was just trying to p**s everybody off. He was not trying to convey anything and as such, banning him is just the same as banning a spammer.

Andres, great post, as usual, my friend.

Well done Mike and Quiet Guy (sorry, I don't know your 'real' name as I've been gone for a while and see that you joined during my most recent extended absence!!!!) - I just read the last two posts and must admit that they are both equally thoughtful and thought provoking.....

Jay, his name is Andres, but you can call him Steve if you want. He won't answer you......... but you can still call him that!!

I know what you're saying about free speech, but I believe, like Andres states above, there still has to be limits and we should also remember that while this forum is, in the main, populated by adults, it is not exclusive to adults.

In the case of Hermy (Ctrl300), I think it's also wise to point out that in a forum there is not the same natural 'curbing' instincts as in real life - as in fear for your life! There is no way Hermy would have said much of the things he said on here in real life, mainly because if he said them in a pub, to use Mike's example, he would have been lynched!

I would say you demonstrated my position nicely. Instead of making a public fuss about it, you deflected Ctrl300 in your own clever (and humorous) way, without calling for help that would, potentially, create a more rule-ridden forum. No ban was called for, or needed.

EDIT: Jay, your posts on free speech are classics and should be posted everywhere there is room for it. Bajo recently re-posted your thoughts from an older, longer thread and they are worth reviewing every so often; much like an ancient mariner reviews his trusty astrolabe to make sure he's sailing the right path.

Mike, I think Cav's point was that he feels that other people were allowed to respond to Hermy, for example, and he wasn't. Now, I am not getting in to whether he is right or wrong about it, but that's how he feels, I think.

[narain fan 0]

Cav's one-man crusade against the mods here is admirable in principle, but naive in practical terms. Were I him, I would simply stop antagonizing the mods and develop a thicker skin in the face of hostile ideas that Ctrl300 has hurled at him. It's by that behavior that we become a forum of free ideas. Taking care of one's own 'problem' is at the heart of freedom. To run to a mod is to invite bans, and stiffer rules, and more oversight. Cav's crusade for 'fairness' will harm the very ideals of free speech that some are arguing for.

If I had such a selfish and myopic attitude, the forum would not have been liberated from the clutches of one of the (if not the most) crudest of moderators.

I have been away for quite some time and on coming back find a number of threads titled “Where do we stand

I am not surprised that it is Pumpdoc who, along with his lieutenant is the main culprit.

I will also take this opportunity (as I am sure I wont have much free time in the days and weeks ahead) to demand that our Norwegian friend

[monza gorilla 1]

Hello Ashwin. Where've you been?

[AutoRacer5 0]

Sorry Ashwin, but the topic is freedom of speech, and it does have its limits. Go on, try to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. Go on. Say something stupid in a trailer park, like 'Walmart Sucks'. Go on, see what happens.

You won't find me in a KKK uniform in the middle of an inner-city neighborhood. That's freedom of speech as well, isn't it?