Censored Posts

[MaggieL]

Thought I'd start this thread. It provides a place to live for posts that have been (or might be) censored in other weblogs.

"The Internet views censorship as damage, and routes around it."

-John Perry Barlow

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by mwbEEf
<a href="/showthread.php?postid=21997">(here)</a>
You sell out! Fine, get me to install Linux and just leave me hanging in the wind, like a pair of forgotten shoes...hanging in the wind. Anyway, I'm just jealous because I don't have a machine to install XP on yet. PLEASE say its okay to order those parts, even if it means I lose and the terrorists win!

Aren't you used to mood swings from dham yet?:-)

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by juju

Hmm.. what's the big secret? Who can't post in your forum?

No secret, really. http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?&threadid=2091

dham would evidently like to ban me from posting in, or even reading this forum, but the Cellar doesn't work that way. Instead he simply deletes posts he doesn't like in this forum, hoping to annoy the poster into going away. Of course he could put up his *own* blog instead of running a forum on The Cellar, and lock out people he doesn't like from the get-go.

I don't intend to start filtering my reading of "View new messages" or responding to threads appearing there, based on which forum they're posted to. If I'm annoyed enough at a post's deletion, or think it's likelty to be anyway, I'll just put a copy over in thread 2091.

<blockquote><i>
The Cellar is not about me, it's about you. A lot of sites that aren't business-driven are ego-driven. Not here. This message and the official History are the only two bits that I really control. I set up the message areas, but if anyone wanted a new area I'd surely create it. Also, you can hate me, it doesn't matter. (I will only respect you more for it.) My goal as a virtual community operator is to do right by the community itself. Disagree with me if you like; I'm often wrong and need to be taught a lesson. Disagreement and honesty are critical to a community's health.
</i></blockquote>

[juju]

Undertoad, do you have anything to say about this?

[Undertoad]

Yes, I think Mag's creation of this thread is the correct response.

My basic instinct is that dham should be allowed to operate his section any way he sees fit, but I am always willing to entertain arguments on either side. I doubt I have the wisdom to see all the compelling arguments even if they are hinted at right before my face. So if defence and prosecution would like to make closing statements, ga.

[juju]

Okay, fair enough.

It's pretty simple, juju. Maggie is free to say whatever she likes. I encourage her to write whatever she feels like writing. But she's shown, on a number of occasions, that she has very little valuable to contribute to my weblog - but a whole lot of negative. That's fine, so I asked her to stop - and put her on my ignore list. All seemed well for a while, until she started posting there again - with comments that are designed to provoke a response. Okay. I respect her freedom of speech, but at the same time, I don't need to tolerate it in my weblog.

I don't aim to censor; I am to <b>discourage participation in my weblog</b>. If you want to write, cool! If you want to say I'm a dick, cool! If I think you've crossed the line with something, I'll ask you on numerous occasions to cut it out.

I've taken a hard line stance on deleting Maggie's posts because if I leave any of them, they are obviously not unwelcome. That's not what I want to convey. I want posting in my weblog to be a waste of time to Maggie. <b>That</b> is what I am trying to accomplish. I can't think of a better way (after having asked her several times to lay off the weblog) to do it.

Like I said, she can post her responses in this forum. I've no problem with that, and I have no problem with her saying anything she wants to about me. I politely asked her to keep it out of my forum on a number of occasions, and when she refused, I started removing posts.

[Nic Name]

dham for President. I can hear him now ...

"I respect Americans' freedom of speech, but I don't have to tolerate it in my country."

Hm. More like "I respect your freedom of speech, but I respect my right to pursuit of happiness as well, and if you're being an asshole in my home, I respect my right to kick your ass out."

[juju]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
It's pretty simple, juju. Maggie is free to say whatever she likes. I encourage her to write whatever she feels like writing. But she's shown, on a number of occasions, that she has very little valuable to contribute to my weblog - but a whole lot of negative.

This is your opinion. I think she is quite intelligent and has a lot to say. It's a shame that you have the power to make this decision for all of us.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
That's fine, so I asked her to stop - and put her on my ignore list. All seemed well for a while, until she started posting there again - with comments that are designed to provoke a response.

I disagree. Her posts aren't designed to provoke a response at all. It's just that you can't maintain control of yourself when you read them.

Originally posted by dhamsaic

Okay. I respect her freedom of speech, but at the same time, I don't need to tolerate it in my weblog.

???

When Maggie suggested that maybe my wife and I weren't right for each other, that really set my blood boiling. I was mad. I went off and posted a bunch of crap. But then, I realized that my response was just an emotional one. It wasn't logical at all. I realized that the problem lied with me and I calmed down, and accepted her words as constructive criticism. And today, she repays me by continuing to expand my mind with intelligent counterpoints and discussion. I guess you and I just have different ways of dealing with this.

Well, i'll butt out now. Unlike you, i'm content to voice my opinion, and then <i>agree to disagree</i>

[Tobiasly]

You're blowing this way out of proportion. Did anyone cry "censorship" when UT decided to enforce that only he post new IOTD's, with all others going to Quality Images? No, UT wanted to maintain a certain set of standards in IOTD, while still allowing people to post what they want in less-restricted areas. I thought it was a dumb move at first, but now I agree with it, because IOTD is high-visibility (that's how myself and I'm sure many others originally came to the Cellar).

I don't agree with dham's deleting of posts, but that's irrelevant. It's his house, and so his rules stand. He's not "making a decision for all of us", he's making a decision for himself. If you don't like it, don't read his forum. If he wants to say only people whose names begin with "D" can post, or people can only post on Tuesdays, so be it.

And Maggie is welcome to do just what she's done -- bitch about it in a public place. And now she's drawn attention to it, which I'm sure was her intention. I don't see the problem here.

You're absolutely right, Donald. You are my messiah. You have blinded me with your light. Your wisdom is infinite.

First of all, Maggie does not cause me to lose control or become filled with rage. I'm not angry with her. I'm not angry at all.

I have asked Maggie, on a number of occasions, to refrain from viewing and posting in my weblog. She has replied that she will not change her viewing habits to suit my desires. Okay, that's fine. But she surely does not need to post here. If she will not "make it so", then I will. Plain and simple. This isn't "Dave's Forum For Everyone Else To Discuss Anything They Want". This is "dhamsaic's weblog". As I've explained before, it's for me. Not you. Not Maggie. Not Tony. Not for anyone else. Me. It's a place for me to get my thoughts out. I allow responses because many times they're amusing or thoughtful or constructive criticism. When comments are designed to provoke, they have no business being here.

You very obviously do not understand what is going on, so I will again attempt to explain it. I am not censoring anyone. I don't have that power. I am the security guard who removes the KKK member in Wal*Mart that's shouting "I HATE NIGGERS!" at the top of his lungs. Is that oppressing free speech?

You sound like a child, Donald. You are a fifteen year old boy convinced that he knows what is right and what is wrong for everyone else. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

In the mean time, it's you who comes off sounding like a raving nutjob. No post is going to incite me to further rage - a rather comical notion, since I'm not in the least bit enraged right now (nor have I been). I do, however, wonder what effect this post is going to have on you. Are you going to write a mature response, or are you going to call names again?

In case you missed it the first time around.

Since that covers most of your post, I'll respond to the other parts.

Originally posted by juju
It's a shame that you have the power to make this decision for all of us.

News flash! dhamsaic decides what goes into his weblog!

Don't like it, don't read it. You'll be missed. Really. No, really. I'm being totally serious. No, I am, I swear. Yes, for real.

Originally posted by juju
I disagree. Her posts aren't designed to provoke a response at all. It's just that you can't maintain control of yourself when you read them.

I addressed the comical "control" notion above - read it over again.

Many of her posts <b>are</b> designed to provoke a response. Your ignorance or inability to remember them is not <b>my</b> fault. I can <b>easily</b> and <b>within 10 minutes</b> find you at least 5 posts of hers where she does not offer constructive criticism but, directly or indirectly, calls other Cellarites names. <b>Easily</b>. How about you go re-read some of her posts to jaguar, sycamore and myself before making such absurd claims?

Originally posted by juju
But then, I realized that my response was just an emotional one. It wasn't logical at all.

This is where you and I differ; my response is not emotional. It is based upon a fleshed-out line of thought (discussed with and agreed upon with a number of Cellarites) that many of her posts are inappropriate in another person's weblog and that the best way to discourage her from posting them is to delete them. I'm not angry with Maggie. I simply want her to stop posting in my weblog. You read too much into things. Sometimes it really <b>is</b> that simple.

[Undertoad]

<i>Did anyone cry "censorship" when UT decided to enforce that only he post new IOTD's, with all others going to Quality Images?</i>

Actually, I think Nic suggested that it was evidence that I don't "play well with others" and perhaps there were frowny-faces as well.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Actually, I think Nic suggested that it was evidence that I don't "play well with others" and perhaps there were frowny-faces as well.

Yeah, I remembered that, but I don't think anyone actually accused you of censorship, just that IOTD would suffer.

Of course, that was before some of the more expressive smileys, so you might have gotten worse than frowny-faces if you did the same thing today.

[juju]

Hmm... perhaps you're right. I withdraw my objections and apologize.