OH,
Yes, there is fine line but it should not be taken as there is absolutely no line.
Some posts, which i quoted above, gives the impression that there is no line.
But, on the other hand, my previous thread was locked so it tells me there is certainly a line.
Otherwise, what was the reason to lock that thread?
This creates confusion.
And, I just want mods to define that line once again, in order to avoid that confusion.
Is it not a simple and justified demand?
With love,
sanjay
Translation: We need to censor and limit what other people can or can’t say.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuNhTLVgV2Y[/youtube]
No, still wrong.
We need to limit how people are saying, not what they are saying.
There is a hell of difference between two things, if one is competent enough can understand that.
And, it should be applicable to all posters. There are no others around here at ILP.
with love,
sanjay
You want more censorship than the lite version we have now because you don’t like other people’s views. Just admit it already.
No. Zinnat wants civility (reasonable consideration of others).
In reality if the mods merely stuck hardcore to the “Off Topic” rule, they would need little else. Ad homs are always off topic. Zinnat is also asking for reasonable constraints on derogatory labels. And for debating, I would want a constraint on belligerent avoidance of relevant questions.
But without a purpose defined for this or any forum, no rules can be rationally justified.
Translation: We need more authoritarianism and rules on ILP to keep all the heretics out. We’re trying to create a christian environment.
Think of the children.
The Earth that I Demand, but I save my voice.
Smears,
Do you think that your are the only person to be intelligent enough to find out this simple fact that any banned poster could come here again under different identity?
A banned poster may come again thousand times but if the mods would stick to the same rules, either he would have to face ban again or if he would have been learned from his first expreience, then he would also follow the rules this time.
So, the problem is solved in either case. And, if a banned poster come again under different identity but follow the rules, i do not have any issue with that because he has been learned from his mistakes and ready to abide by the rules now.
Have you ever thought of it that way?
Smears, you again got it wrong.
Every tryant is ruler by default, but every ruler need not to be a tryant by default.
There is absolutely no need for the mods to be a tryant. A normal and simple moderation is more than enough for ILP.
But, the terms of moderation should be defined, consistent and fair to all. That is all i am asking.
Furthermore, i am not pressing for moderation either. Owners of ILP may say that they do not see any need of moderation. I am fine with that too but let them say that clearly, at least.
But, in that case, my question still stands that, for what my previous thread has been locked?
Would you like to answer that?
Well, everyone has his own capacity of thinking and use to think accordingly.
A child may think in his wisdom that this world of made of only children like him.
Children often think that they know more than their parents and other adults. But, they do not understand their parents have seen a lot more of this world and its inhabitants than those innocents; much more than they cannot even imagine.
with love,
sanjay
Wrong again, as usual.
But, Never mind, i have more patience to correct you than your capacity to presenting it wrong.
So, keep on pretending as long as you can. I will not dishearten you ever.
So, here we are, perhaps for the fifth or sixth time-
I want more censorship merely on way of expression, not expression itself.
My personal liking or disliking does not matter, neither yours.
I neither like nor dislike you.
The fact of the matter is that i do not agree with you. That is all.
And, for your kind information, disagreement does not entail disliking.
On the other hand, is it not true that you do not merely disagree with feminists, but rather dislike or even hate them.
See the difference, if you can.
with love,
sanjay
That is far better response.
I think that it would be far better for some posters if they restrict themselves only to such posts.
with love,
sanjay
Nice post.
Carry on, please.
with love,
sanjay
Cripes Ty, just quit spamming. Thats all.
In simple words, i am expecting ILP to be different contentwise than Orkut.
That is exactly the issue but i did not put it in that way intentionally, because i did not want it to be a philosophical issue.
This is precisely what i discussed with Gib in length at Feminism and Sexism.
What is more important? Goal or means?
[u]Free speech is good and certainly a important tool to have a good philosophical discussion. Agreed.
But, the problem is that, if we will start considering merely free speech as an ultimate goal, then the real purpose, which is a good philosophical discussion, will have to suffer sooner or later.
Kindness is certaily in the virtue and violence is bad for sure, but if you will try to be too kind with such a killer and spare him, who is on the shooting spree with Ak-47 in his hand, you will certaily end up with far more violence and destruction than killing a single person. And, the ultimate purpose which is less violence, will be cheated[/u].
Respect the situation and react accrdingly. It is far better to compromise with mean than the goal itself.
That is all i am trying to say.
with love,
sanjay
Tyrannus warned and banned for one day (second warning) for trolling.
OH, could you or another mod address the questions Zinnat has asked?
I’ve been curious about those issues for a while.
Since a lot of people are investing a lot of time and effort here to produce thought, it’s not unreasonable to clarify something once in a while about the real purpose of the moderating.
As Zinnat correctly states, the rules of the moderation depend on its purpose.
Not that anyone is obliged to explain (and I’m not complaining), but it’s an interesting question.
FC,
I have been answered, firstly remotely by Ucci, then indirectly by OH.
The goal has been somewhat acheived with least harm so i am not much interested in the means.
Though, i do not mind discussing those either, but just as philosophical issue, not a personal one.
It looks to me that Ty was intentionally pushing himself to the limits as to provoke something to happen in order to find an excuse for himself because he wanted to leave ILP as a matyr.
I looked at his link. It is a well constructed site and cannot be done in a day or two. He must be preparing it since long.
OH banned him for a day as on 25th, 5.27 pm and he created his own well designed forum at 25th,5.55 pm. The time gap between the two events is merely 27 minutes. That is just immpossible. This gives me the impression that he was pretending himaself far more arrogant and unwanted character than he actually is. He himself wanted to leave ILP and get busy with his forum, which is a right thing to do anyway, but as usual, he did not have guts to accept that openly and just wanted to put blame on others even for his resignation from the ILP.
Though, i am more than sure that he will come come again in some other shape and form.
with love,
sanjay
That’s Numberwang!