To: JamesR - WHERE is it against the rules?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by neoclassical, Oct 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    neoclassical:

    You seem to be an expert on freedom of speech. But have you ever heard of freedom of association?

    Your post defaming me is, of course, completely in breach of the site rules, and could be a subject for legal action, too, if I could be bothered wasting time and money on you.

    I won't edit your post, so that when you eventually get yourself banned people will know why.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
    ROFL

    Please point out what is defamatory, by law, in that post.

    You've already failed it on one point of law (since the ACLU and ADL both found your assertions to be ludicrous).

    Now fail it on another, Mr. Authority Fixation.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    James R, I admire your conscience. Thank you for censoring what needs to be censored.

    You are definitely not abusing your power on this. Please continue to exercise it.
     
  8. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    This is obviously horseshit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    He doesn't have to 'by law', all he has to do is use his judgment as a moderator, which is his job. If you don't like his moderation, you are 'free' to complain, and 'free' to post elsewhere.

    You don't have constitutional rights here, you simply abide by the site rules.
     
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "Neither I, nor the NSDAP, were white supremacists. We're nationalists. I don't identify myself as a Nazi, either - if you want to actually learn (LOL) about my beliefs"

    That'll be why you have www.nazi.org as your homepage?

    What I found funny about the website was the emphasis on personal freedom coupled with bits like this:
    "Forced relocation of those on the wrong continents
    Forced separation of mixed-race couples"

    Wheres yer free speech noo?
     
  11. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    He said that???

    Look, a moron!
     
  12. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    But as is fairly obvious in human history, national is not necessarily correlated with skin colour.
     
  13. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    Oh, but the NSDAP were white supremacists, I am well aware that national is not correlated with skin colour, but that is not the point here.
     
  14. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
    I didn't say I did.

    His was the appeal to the law, and not mine.

    -1 for lack of reading comprehension there, Socrates.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
    Personal freedom is never totally free. Neither is free speech. The LNSG is a recognition of that fact and a chance for society to rebuild.

    But I don't know if they identify as Nazis, or that me listing it as a website makes me one.

    Except for zealots with more anger than brain ( = you ).
     
  16. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
    "At this time I choose to defer to JamesR, who has been addressing this situation at large. While I personally have no objection to a comparative examination of the underlying issues of what is or is not a hate site, this situation treads beyond the borders of the EM&J forum, and it's not too much to ask for a working thesis in order to establish intent other than--such as the case at hand--an attempt to carry out a specific agenda already deemed thematically inappropriate."

    ROFL @ insecurity of people here in their beliefs.

    My point has been made, I think.
     
  17. neoclassical Banned Banned

    Messages:
    135
    From email today:

    " Hello neoclassical,

    I have been very patient with you, but now my patience is wearing thin.

    Your "User title", as you know, displays a link to a site you were explicitly asked not to link to on sciforums.

    Now, I could simply edit that title, but you would most likely change it back. So, I am going to ask you nicely to change it. If you cannot do that, you will be banned permanently.

    Frankly, I am tired of having to spend time virtually every day attending to one or another problem relating to your posts. The next time I have to do that, you will be banned permanently.

    Something tells me this is your aim anyway. I wish you all the best for the future, and hope that you grow up at some stage."

    Please point out in the rules where it is stated that this is illicit.

    Since you have demonstrated an obsession with me, it's fair you do this.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    As you can all see from the above post, neoclassical received my message. He deliberately decided not to heed the warning which was given, and did not change his user title. Instead, he decided to see how far he could push before he was banned.

    This is how far.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page