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. 

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.)

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.

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.

response 77 of 79:

Feb 5 18:53 UTC 2004

Have a nice day!  :):):)

response 79 of 79:

May 17 02:14 UTC 2006

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE