|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 19 new of 79 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 61 of 79:
| 
Jan 28 02:31 UTC 2004 |
I heard it was the misunderstanding by the court that got Arbornet so much
money.
|
styles
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Jan 28 03:43 UTC 2004 |
and le aa snooze.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Jan 28 03:58 UTC 2004 |
I still maintain that, as it stands, I'm entirely within my rights to run
various fun events like Greek Week and Grex Reads the Classics, and I will
continue to do so.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Jan 28 04:22 UTC 2004 |
60: Sure. I'm serious if you are.
|
gull
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Jan 28 23:48 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:63: Why don't you create your own conference to run them in, then?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Jan 28 23:50 UTC 2004 |
I ALREADY DID< IN FACT.
|
naftee
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Jan 29 05:28 UTC 2004 |
WOW
|
janc
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Feb 5 05:19 UTC 2004 |
Hmmm. The red words on Grex's home page are there because I put them there,
back when I designed that page. I don't remember consulting anyone about
it, but nobody else has objected to them or removed them. I'm a bit surprised
to see that these have somehow become the preamble to Grex's constitution in
the minds of some. If I changed it to "beer and pretzels" would the whole
issue go away? Does anyone care about the framers intent?
Seriously, this interpretation of what "free speech" means is absurdly
extreme and absurdly simplistic. Does removal of the record of a discussion
that ended two years ago really make Grex a less effective venue for free
discussion?
Actually, Grex might be a better venue for free speech if everything were
deleted after a year. People might feel more free to speak if they didn't
think their every word would be preserved in public view for all eternity.
Does anyone feel "freed" by jp2's position on this matter? If these items
are left deleted, will you feel less free to speak on Grex than you once
did? If not, what exactly is the damage done to free speech here?
|
other
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Feb 5 05:48 UTC 2004 |
What some people here are (intentionally?) missing is that free
speech as an ideal is not most effectively preserved by applying it
indiscriminately to ALL speech.
Certain forms of speech are clearly prohibited under the American
constitution, and rightly so because their destructive (as
distinctly opposed to disruptive) potential far exceeds any possible
value of those specific messages and specific forms of speech,
especially when there are so many other means by which to convey
ideas.
Shouting fire in a crowded thatre is not illegal because it will
interrupt the ability of the audience to enjoy the performance, but
because the sudden movement of a mass of people through the
bottlenecks of a few exits can easily result in the deaths of some
of those people (and has done so). Similarly, accounts are locked
on Grex for abuse of the system in a fashion which either ignores or
blatantly seeks to exceed the limitations to which the system is
subject, and which thereby presents a very realm potential to deny
access to the system to those who wish to use it.
The analogy is not direct in that loss of access to Grex does not
necessarily result in the death of any users, but it does result in
tangible degradation of the user experience. If that condition
persists unchecked, Grex's core user base would be faced with either
abandoning the system or enduring unnecessary delays which would
likely exceed their desire to participate in the community.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable that Grex should limit the
absolute freedom of expression within its borders in order to
preserve its ability to foster freedom of speech within its borders.
Abusers such as dah/polytarp/willcome/etc (and I would be inclined
to include naftee because I believe it is the same person) are
guilty of conscious and premeditated attempts to destroy Grex, so
any claims of violation of its free speech rights on Grex are not
only specious, but are callously and cynically calculated to further
its efforts to this end.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Feb 5 13:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:42 UTC 2004 |
Sure, if you cite where I said that "destructive" speech is banned
BY the constitution. (Seems to me I said "under," meaning within
the bounds of. As with all constitutional issues, this means as
determined by the SCOTUS.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:48 UTC 2004 |
You tell me. By the way, if you can't tell the difference between
backpedaling and clarification in the face of a straw man, then you
should stay out of politics.
|
jp2
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 75 of 79:
|
Feb 5 15:06 UTC 2004 |
other is a jerkface. It's statement's about people trying to destroy GreX are
all wrong.
|
other
|
|
response 76 of 79:
|
Feb 5 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Naftee, you're ABSOLUTELY correct, you ARE a vandal and an asshole!
|
other
|
|
response 77 of 79:
|
Feb 5 18:53 UTC 2004 |
Have a nice day! :):):)
|
naftee
|
|
response 78 of 79:
|
Feb 6 00:00 UTC 2004 |
:-0
|
jesuit
|
|
response 79 of 79:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|