So far, an infinitely greater per centage of participants believe that Sciforums is Completely Censored than believe it is Completely Free.
There are no rights on a privately owned forum. If anything, standards are too lax. On my other favorite forum, posters such as Sandy and Baron would have been banned within days for posting crap. Who knows how many other forums they have been banned from to end up here? I think they (forum owners, moderators) are on the right track with the changes that have been made so far.
Please. Take a look at any of the threads about gays, and tell me what Baron contributes? Once he arrives, it becomes a version of The Argument Sketch. He wears everyone else down with his parrot like repetitiveness, and everyone else abandons the discussion. The Debate and Discussion section at the other forum is hardly full of people agreeing with each other. But you have to have to be able to back up your assertions. For another example, Sandy asserted that, in spite of all linked evidence to the contrary, there was a link between Saddam and Al Qa'ida. But she wasn't going to provide any evidence, and she was done talking about it. Invert, do you feel the forum is lesser for no longer having J.B. or Happeh?
isnt the whole purpose of "free speach" is to be able to say what you want and what you like, without attacking people? and upseting people?
I was NEVER banned from another site. Not ever. I don't personally attack people (unless brutalized for days). And that is the only reason someone should be banned. Not for differing opinions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I posted links about the Saddam/alQaeda link. If someone didn't open/read them, that's their choice. The funniest thing is the guys who were the biggest flirts/aggressors in PM are the most vicious now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You posted links which were based on outdated information. I posted links based on the 9/11 commission report, and a recently declassified Pentagon report (April of 07) which showed that there was no such link. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/iraq/main2655316.shtml You then said "Yes there is, but I'm done talking about it", and provided no evidence that was contrary to the Pentagon report.
i was banned from another forum and all i did was give an opinion, if i knew the opinion i was going to give was the wrong one, i wouldve realised that it was yet anouther "pat on the back website"
The proof of the link between binLaden and Saddam was the pearl. binLaden tried to purchase the $6OM Pearl of Allah for Saddam "to unite the Arab cultures and as an overture of unity between alQaida and the Iraqi government." Saddam was prepared to accept according to the pearl's owner. Now if you don't know about this then you really don't know as much about the relationship between the two as you think you do. There was a relationship. I don't care what the media or any reports say.
