Out of common decency and morality FD, could you please delete the entire "comedy central" thread as it was I who started the thread and was not able further my comments and explanation on the topic due to shari'a law infiltrating the sacrificial morals of our nation.

I'd be happy if you could delete the entire thread.

Thanks very much FD.

Amadd.

Aren't there a few of those threads?

Just a simple "No" would suffice.

I'm sure we could make this into something complicated.

It might be worth a try  ;D

Do you think that calls for even greater censorship is an appropriate response to censorship?

Not at all. It's only fair that I should be able to discuss in the topic that I started. Otherwise I'd prefer it removed. Simple.

Anyway, that was a week ago. Ancient history in forum terms.

Quote:

Otherwise I'd prefer it removed. Simple.

So you do think that calls for even greater censorship are an appropriate response to censorship?

Quote:

So you do think that calls for even greater censorship are an appropriate response to censorship?

It's not greater censorship, it's correcting a lie.
If somebody starts a debate and then is gagged and has all comments omitted, then the debate in itself becomes a lie.

It was initially hard to bear, but I'm over it now... with a little help from Mo' friend.   :)

I've moved on. I'm searching for something else to p!ss me off  ;D

Amadd wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 6:54am:

Quote: So you do think that calls for even greater censorship are an appropriate response to censorship? It's not greater censorship, it's correcting a lie. If somebody starts a debate and then is gagged and has all comments omitted, then the debate in itself becomes a lie. It was initially hard to bear, but I'm over it now... with a little help from Mo' friend.   :) I've moved on. I'm searching for something else to p!ss me off  ;D

I agree with this. To allow partial censorship skews the remaining posts to the point that they become meaningless or misrepresent the respondents' replies.

As for Abu (if you're referring to a thread on the Islam board), I think he is a coward and a hypocrite (not unusual for those who overtly claim the moral high ground by way of religious chauvinism). This is the same man who subverted censorship against him.

Treat others as you would like to be treated, Abu... It's the least you can do.

Quote:

it's correcting a lie

With censorship?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 10:15pm:

Quote: it's correcting a lie With censorship?

Copping out, FD?

Quote:

With censorship?

Yeah, it's depends on your stance FD. It's your world here, you run it.

Like I said to Abu (which was censored) , "You can censor me but you show yourself".
Well he showed himself to me with his censoring, but not to others because he deleted all of my comments. He kept his intent somewhat hidden to others and controlled the subject matter as a "dictator" not a moderator.
So it's up to you FD if you choose to interfere with moderators becoming dictators in your world, or if you simply choose to let them run their course.
Personally, I think that you've made the right choice to let some dictatorships run their course and accept that some dictatorships can exist with the advantage of this being within the safe confines of a chat forum. This isn't at a level where lives are at stake we'd all hope and assume.
At a higher level, stances would obviously need to be taken and decisions would need to be made. But at a chat forum level, I'm quite happy for people to display their secular idealisms and I applaud you for not pandering to impassioned pleas for righteousness.

The natural way of things is for the ridiculous to be highlighted as being ridiculous, so I'll highlight my point once again and ask why the Mo'
clip should be so offensive and ask why we should be pandering to people who haven't the ability to have a chuckle at themselves once in a while.

Warning:200th episode of Southpark clip contains actual image of Mo' which was once displayed without repercussions and also a chick with nice cleavage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9bYLa5gaA&feature=fvstiiiii

Why is Abu even a moderator?

Quote:

Yeah, it's depends on your stance FD.

So whether deleting a post is censorship depends on your stance? From what stance is it not censorship?

Quote:

So whether deleting a post is censorship depends on your stance? From what stance is it not censorship?

From a legal standpoint.

Look if you came in here without any knowledge of Abu, and without reading his guidelines for posting on the Islam board, you may have an argument, but as you are not a stranger here, then that doesn't really apply.
There are all the other boards, apart from the Islam one, where you can merrily post whatever you want about Islam, so if you just want others to be able to see the cartoon, no problem.
If you just wanted to see what Abu's reaction to the cartoon would be, well you've done that too, so again, mission accomplished.
If you wanted to highlight the small mindedness of some muslims then you are pretty much preaching to the choir, as we are all familiar with what happens to anything deemed offensive to Islam, or Allah, or Mohammed, if it is posted on the Islam board.
It goes, it goes, it just goes.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2010 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Yeah, it's depends on your stance FD. So whether deleting a post is censorship depends on your stance? From what stance is it not censorship?

Aww I get it now... Abu is paid up.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 11^th, 2010 at 8:42pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2010 at 6:56pm: Quote: Yeah, it's depends on your stance FD. So whether deleting a post is censorship depends on your stance? From what stance is it not censorship? Aww I get it now... Abu is paid up.

Yes, it's a conspiracy.


Quote:

From a legal standpoint.

Can you clarify? What legal standpoint? Do you mean how lawyers use their own language, so censorship might mean something else entirely?

Quote:

Aww I get it now... Abu is paid up.

I see.


Quote:

It goes, it goes, it just goes.

..and I thought it went. I thought I said or implied that I'll accept that he has his own law which doesn't apply throughout Australia.
To be honest, I was surprised (nay shocked) that he'd find the cartoon offensive.
I also had a lot of other inoffensive comments (and that's pretty good for me) deleted which were relative to the topic.
Why delete everything of mine except the topic? Why hand it over to FD?

Why not just say, "the topic has no merit" and scrub the lot?
Why? Because that would offend everybody else who posted on the topic, that's why.

It just so happened, that displaying the cartoon itself was an integral part of clarifying the debate as exhibit "A". Maybe I could've got away with just posting a link. Maybe I should've tried that.
In the end, the point that was made was that you cannot actually have a debate in Islam.

The 200th episode southpark clip shows how hypocritical we've become about what is or isn't offensive. A few years ago, they got away with showing an image of Mo', and now they can't even show not showing him. As Matt Stone said "We lost".i

I repeat: Why is Abu even a moderator?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 11th, 2010 at 8:42pm: freediver wrote on May 11th, 2010 at 6:56pm: Quote: Yeah, it's depends on your stance FD. So whether deleting a post is censorship depends on your stance? From what stance is it not censorship? Aww I get it now... Abu is paid up. Yes, it's a conspiracy.

No, it's capitulation.

Quote:

Can you clarify? What legal standpoint? Do you mean how lawyers use their own language, so censorship might mean something else entirely?

No, I mean following the legal process as one would in an Australian court of law, parliament, etc. as an Australian citizen.

Let's say for example, in a parliamentary sitting, backbencher Amadd raises the question of whether muslims should be allowed to gain exclusive control of the media or entertainment industry through threats or simply via what they decide to state as being acceptable to their religion.
..the debate continues, and the sweet and innocent backbencher (Amadd) brings forth the exhibit from which offence was taken on religious grounds and displays it to the chamber.

The speaker/moderator (Abu), who just happens to be muslim, decides that the exhibit is offensive, ousts Amadd from the parliamentary sitting and demands that all points and discussions brought forward by backbencher Amadd are to be struck from the parliament Hansard, except for the initial question which will now be recorded as belonging to backbencher FD. By doing so, this also changes the vein of the topic  put forward for debate into something more palatable for the muslim speaker.
These actions would be highly illegal in our country. So that's what I mean by from a "legal standpoint".
You could substitute this scenario to other instances - the media, a court of law, or even to heresay discussions amongst friends where comments have been omitted to change the original context or meaning of an argument or debate. The net result is always a lie in favour of the editor.

I see now that you are allowing Abu to have his little Islam and you are agreeing to censorships which you probably don't personally agree with. And you will not censor him from censoring because that would be over-censoring. ..I suppose  :D

As long as I'm clear on the rules and your standpoint in regards to censorship, then I have no reason to debate a futile argument any further.
But one has to wonder where pandering to a ridiculous logic will eventually take us. It's nip it in the bud now, or be doomed to forever be pandering to increasingly illogical demands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG0quz3Gu8gi


i

i think you guys are missing the point, FD does not interfere in ANY of the MEMBER RUN boards.

They are the ones below the break in the page, starting with Spirituality, and in all those boards it is the board moderators who make their own calls, and their own guidelines.

FD would only intervene if something of incredible offensiveness, or obscenity was involved, other than that, it is as if each board is autonomous, so complain to Abu, if you have issues with him.
I think the fact that people are able to show their principles in action, by displaying the behaviours being questioned is worthwhile in itself, as it is an object lesson on why we would never want any Islamic influence in positions of control, in our country, so look on it as an object lesson. :)

mozzaok wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 8:25am:

i think you guys are missing the point, FD does not interfere in ANY of the MEMBER RUN boards.

Then maybe he should.

A reasonable commitment to free speech as accepted by this country should be mandatory. Banning from boards should only occur after agreement with a "senior" moderator.

Abu would appreciate this as he does not accept restrictions on his own expectations of free speech.

I agree with freediver in letting member run boards being run by members.

Sure, we may disagree on how they are run.
But, it's their freedoom to run them how they see fit.

Abus reaping what he has sown. ALmost eveyone here has no time for islam thanks to his behaviour.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:17am:

Abus reaping what he has sown. ALmost eveyone here has no time for islam thanks to his behaviour.

And isn't that the antithesis of what boards like this should be about?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:17am:

I agree with freediver in letting member run boards being run by members.

... allowing the development of banlieues on his own Forum.


I am not aware of any members run boards on Islamic forums by atheist free-speechers. It's always only the weak western equivocators who forever defend the Islamists' right to discriminate against them.

Well at least Sprint gets it, onya Sprint, and we all know that you give everyone the freedom to say whatever they wish in the Spirituality Board, that you mod, no matter how disrespectful to your personal god of choice, or your own religious sensibilities.

The expressions, "by their deeds ye shall know them", and, "hung by his own petard", or even, "give 'em enough rope", obviously spring to mind, and the lack of respect for views outside of those that Abu deems acceptable, is instructive to many, in respect to what degree of tolerance we could expect from muslims, if ever they became successful in attaining their goal of autonomy within our society, or worse still,  in their ultimate aim of total world domination for both 'sharia law', in particular, and Islam in general.

Nearly all who have negative comments about Islam, post them in Extremism Exposed, and usually only post on the Islam board, if they are seeking a response from Abu, in an attempt to get a muslim's opinion on a particular subject, and it is often both instructive and worthwhile to do that.

It is very rarely not a good thing to try and at least "understand" opinions on any subject, outside of your own, and I for one have learned of positive qualities of muslims and Islam from Abu's replies.

It is also worth acknowleding that many posts are made to be as deliberately offensive as they can be, in an attept to elicit a negative response from Abu, so acting all shocked and dismayed when that happens does seem a little disingenuous.
We come in with mostly negative ideas about Islam, as it appears to us, most of which are negatives of a systemic nature, so when events occur that seem to reinforce those beliefs, it hardly seems worthwhile to then protest the fact, when we achieved the goal of highlighting a negative aspect, which was our original goal.
So it is unfair to try and portray Abu as some extremist, when he is just following the decrees set out by his personal faith, and that intolerance for views outside of Islam is part of the normal behaviour, that muslim's are required to observe..

Being reminded of that on a regular basis helps us to keep in mind exactly what sort of a system Islam is, so frequent reminders of that fact does serve a very real purpose.

Freedom of speech is not just the freedom to be as offensive and provocative as you wish, and all societies set limits as to what they consider acceptable, or not, so having a constant reminder on Islam's board here, of how great that difference can be, could be looked upon as instructive, in better understanding a culture that is constantly seeking greater acceptance, and greater power, within our own society, and I prefer to see a small example of muslim intolerance here, rather than have it become an accepted part of our wider community.

mozzaok wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 12:07pm:

So it is unfair to try and portray Abu as some extremist, when he is just following the decrees set out by his personal faith, and that intolerance for views outside of Islam is part of the normal behaviour, that muslim's are required to observe..

"I was only following orders", Mozz?

I guess that is one way of putting it.

Islam does not allow much wiggle room for intepretation, except when it comes to justifying extreme violence, in that regard they can be considered as "writing the book", on religious justifications for killing your neighbour. (or family member who dishonours you, or islam)

Ok, you're right. The topic in my name.

Quote:

Why hand it over to FD?

hand what over?


Quote:

No, it's capitulation.

So Helian, you think I should capitulate to Amadd to show that I am not a capitulator?


Quote:

These actions would be highly illegal in our country. So that's what I mean by from a "legal standpoint".

Can you explain how it answers my question?

--- From what stance is it not censorship?


Quote:

I see now that you are allowing Abu to have his little Islam and you are agreeing to censorships which you probably don't personally agree with.

I support the mods of the member run boards to run them as they see fit. If I started dictating to them what they can and cannot delete, it would defeat the purpose opf having them.


Quote:

And you will not censor him from censoring because that would be over-censoring.

So now you agree it would be censorship?


Quote:

As long as I'm clear on the rules and your standpoint in regards to censorship, then I have no reason to debate a futile argument any further.

I will set a minimum standard for all the boards, but the mods of the member run boards can be as strict as they want.


Quote:

It's nip it in the bud now, or be doomed to forever be pandering to increasingly illogical demands.

False dichotmoy.


Quote:

A reasonable commitment to free speech as accepted by this country should be mandatory.

Mandatory for what, owning a website? And how would you enforce this committment to free speech? Via censorship?

Quote:

Banning from boards should only occur after agreement with a "senior" moderator.

I just promoted Abu to the position of Senior moderator. Happy now?


Quote:

And isn't that the antithesis of what boards like this should be about?

I think we learn a lot more this way.


Quote:

I am not aware of any members run boards on Islamic forums by atheist free-speechers.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?


Quote:

The point was that I would've prefered the topic be removed than to have it put into somebody else's name. By taking ownership of the topic, FD is interfering. The initial post (being a copy/paste) is still in my name and all further comments of which I'd spent a bit of time writing, have been deleted. The topic is now "by Freediver", not Amadd. Would it be OK with you if Abu had put the topic in your name?

I split and splice topics all the time. I thought the problem was cenorship. I don't think anything has been falsely attributed to me.


Quote:

Without a bit of a dummy spit

Good to see you are keeping it in perspective.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:33pm:

Quote: No, it's capitulation. So Helian, you think I should capitulate to Amadd to show that I am not a capitulator?

I think you should stand up for the principle of reasonable free speech and resist complacency and schadenfreude. The upshot of which is the same as the cowardice newspaper editors display when they capitulate to certain threats. Freedoms are only meaningful if one is prepared to defend them.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:33pm:

Quote: No, it's capitulation. So Helian, you think I should capitulate to Amadd to show that I am not a capitulator?

I think you don't give a sh!t because it doesn't affect you.

Like Abu, you will only react when your own sense of freedom is threatened.

I think you should stand up for the principle of reasonable free speech and resist complacency and schadenfreude. The upshot of which is the same as the cowardice newspaper editors display when they capitulate to certain threats. Freedoms are only meaningful if one is prepared to defend them.

In the member-run boards, did the moderators give money to Freediver so that the forums could be created and they could be moderators?

I've only been here a year and I still don't get all of it.

aikmann4 wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

In the member-run boards, did the moderators give money to Freediver so that the forums could be created and they could be moderators? I've only been here a year and I still don't get all of it.

Don't think so... I was being facetious.

imperium - no, FB gave some people their own bds to mod if there was a great enough interest in that area.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 6:16am:

aikmann4 wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 10:14pm: In the member-run boards, did the moderators give money to Freediver so that the forums could be created and they could be moderators? I've only been here a year and I still don't get all of it. Don't think so... I was being facetious.

I used to post on a message-board that had "Member Run Forums" where people gave the administrator like $40 and he would give them their own forum and make them moderator of it.

Quote:

So Helian, you think I should capitulate to Amadd to show that I am not a capitulator?

It wasn't a demand FD, it was a request.
Fair enough, the topic shouldn't be removed. Other people had spent time posting their comments there as did I.
However, I do think that it's a neccessity to highlight the fact that the discussion may be distorted due to gagging and censoring by the moderator, or in this case, the dictator.

Quote:

I think you should stand up for the principle of reasonable free speech

Byu deleting a thread? You still have not explained how deleting protects free speech.


Quote:

I think you don't give a sh!t because it doesn't affect you.

Yes it does. I get people asking me lots of silly questions.


Quote:

Like Abu, you will only react when your own sense of freedom is threatened.

Or Abu's.


Quote:

In the member-run boards, did the moderators give money to Freediver so that the forums could be created and they could be moderators?

No, but I wouldn't complain if they did. There is a donation button at the bottom of the screen.


Quote:

Fair enough, the topic shouldn't be removed.

Thanks Amadd.

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 8:09pm:

Byu deleting a thread? You still have not explained how deleting protects free speech.

By removing a skewed and misleading thread.


freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 8:09pm:

Quote: I think you don't give a sh!t because it doesn't affect you. Yes it does. I get people asking me lots of silly questions.

QED


freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 8:09pm:

Quote: Like Abu, you will only react when your own sense of freedom is threatened. Or Abu's.

Abu's what? Freedom to censor?

Quote:

By removing a skewed and misleading thread.

That doesn't explain how it would protect free speech. Doesn't free speech protect the right to skew and mislead? Are you going to sit in judgement and decide which speech should be allowed and which must be deleted in case people get the wrong idea?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

Quote: By removing a skewed and misleading thread. That doesn't explain how it would protect free speech. Doesn't free speech protect the right to skew and mislead?

Orwell would be proud laughing.

Are you going to sit in judgement and decide which speech should be allowed and which must be deleted in case people get the wrong idea? In the name of free speech?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

Are you going to sit in judgement and decide which speech should be allowed and which must be deleted in case people get the wrong idea? In the name of free speech?

Disallow deletions of posts except where a "senior" moderator agrees while allowing redaction - editing only instances offensive language / comments in the interests of appropriate representation of all posters' views.

I have just read through the thread in question out of a sense of morbid curiosity (and a robust determination to avoid studying).

Regardless of anything that's been argued for or against here, I think the thread should be deleted on the grounds that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. At least not after that overzealous moderator's had his turn on it.

It reads like a conversation between paranoid delusional schizophrenics.

Now before anyone feels the urge to point out that not all schizophrenics are paranoid and delusional. I know, I know, OK! It's just that I needed some sort of ailment or disorder to press the point, and it happens that widely recognised references are much more rhetoriclly effective. So if you're tired of schizophrenia being the posterboy of nutterdom, perhaps you shouldn't be running a schizophrenia awareness week? Leave it to the Tourette's Association (YOU smacking front bottoms!!). Anyway, on behalf of all paranoid people, I would like to point out that we are not all delusional and schizophrenic OK. So I may be, fair enough. But not all of us.

And no, I don't have Tourette's syndrome, it's just that you really are all a bunch of FILTHY FVCKINGS TWATS!!

Quote:

Regardless of anything that's been argued for or against here, I think the thread should be deleted on the grounds that it makes  absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If this is an acceptable criterion for the removal of posts, would that mean that we would have no choice but to delete three quarters of the posts you make outside of the Environment forum?

Quote:

By removing a skewed and misleading thread.

Quote:

That doesn't explain how it would protect free speech. Doesn't free speech protect the right to skew and mislead?

Quote:

Orwell would be proud laughing.

No I can't see how that would protect free speech, but I can see how it would protect censorship.

Maybe someday a feature might be able to be added like a "wastebasket" for deleted comments where other posters are able to see the reasons for deletion or banning. This would hold the mods to account a little more if they ever decide to use their privilege against the spirit of free speech.
But to be realistic, no forum will satisfy all of the users all of the time. It's only been on very rare occasions where I've experienced any censorship problems here, so it's not a big issue for me personally.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 1:52pm:

No I can't see how that would protect free speech, but I can see how it would protect censorship. Maybe someday a feature might be able to be added like a "wastebasket" for deleted comments where other posters are able to see the reasons for deletion or banning. This would hold the mods to account a little more if they ever decide to use their privilege against the spirit of free speech. But to be realistic, no forum will satisfy all of the users all of the time. It's only been on very rare occasions where I've experienced any censorship problems here, so it's not a big issue for me personally.

Free speech is protected by a guarantee that your involvement will at least not be expunged. When an individual selectively removes posts leaving no reference to their existence, what is left is not a representation of an open dialogue. Further, due to the obliteration of your posts, it cannot be seen that it was even censored in the first place, exacerbating the situation by masquerading as an open (if an inexplicably skewed) dialogue.

aikmann4 wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

Quote: Regardless of anything that's been argued for or against here, I think the thread should be deleted on the grounds that it makes  absolutely no sense whatsoever. If this is an acceptable criterion for the removal of posts, would that mean that we would have no choice but to delete three quarters of the posts you make outside of the Environment forum?

I disagree vehemently. You would have no choice but to delete all of  the posts I make outside of the Environment forum.

Not true. That one was extremely astute and should be kept.

Wait.

Mindf*ck here.

Quote:

Free speech is protected by a guarantee that your involvement will at least not be expunged. When an individual selectively removes comments leaving no reference to their existence, what is left is not a representation of an open dialogue. However, due to the obliteration of your comments, it cannot be determined that it was even censored in the first place, exacerbating the situation by masquerading as an open (if an inexplicably skewed) dialogue.

I agree with your comments wholeheartedly Helian.
In that respect, a "wastebasket" of sorts where deleted comments could be viewed by other users who could then decide for themselves if the comments warranted deletion, or if the deletions skewed the context of the topic, would have saved me a dummy spit to highlight the fact that the discussion had been skewed. Albeit, merely resulting in a disjointed discussion.
I know that this feature would be difficult to incorporate into the forum, so it's not even a suggestion to FD, it's just a personal idea on how I think some of the friction may possibly have been avoided.

For the most part, the biggest problem I've had with censorship here is that my garbage isn't censored enough, and I've had to go back and remove it myself. So in that respect, my "wastebasket" idea would fail me, but it might be good for a laugh  ;D

The only comments that I've made that I don't consider to warrant deletion have ocurred on Abu's board....or maybe a few by Easel before he was banned for his "free" speech.
Mozz insinuated (not in so many words) that everybody knows that Abu will side with the rules of Islam far before the largely unwritten rules of Australia, and everybody should know and accept this.
But to what extent that Abu will do this is always a source of interest and well worthy of monitoring. It's also worthy of highlighting the occassions where he has gagged posters and the reasons involved...IMO.

I've had my dummy spit, and I was satisfied enough that I highlighted my greivance.
And that's not to say by any means that I don't think that this forum has a good format, or that I don't apppreciate FD's efforts here. Anybody who has had a Mrs. would realise the value of appreciation for even the most seemingly trivial of tasks. The omission of appreciation can also be a censorship of facts. So I'll take a lesson from the women's rulebook for once in my life and say/admit/reveal that I do appreciate your great efforts FD.
If my request for deleting the said topic was granted, then I would now be disappointed because others had also voiced their opinion and deleting the entire topic would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's all good, healthy debate..cheers  :)i

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 7:06pm:

For the most part, the biggest problem I've had with censorship here is that my garbage isn't censored enough, and I've had to go back and remove it myself.

And it's your responsibility to self-censor.


Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 7:06pm:

Mozz insinuated (not in so many words) that everybody knows that Abu will side with the rules of Islam far before the largely unwritten rules of Australia, and everybody should know and accept this.

Then Abu should not participate in the life of mainstream Australian forums. This country and its people subscribe to the ideals that are the basis of all Western secular democratic societies and those ideals should be exemplified in its every niche, including this small forum. What does it mean to value our freedoms if we are too lazy, complacent or fearful to defend them?

Quote:

And it's your responsibility to self-censor.

I'm happy to self-censor.
To be honest, I sometimes like to write a load of crap and see if it makes any sense to me later on. If it doesn't, then I'll delete it but continue to try to make some sense of it myself. Oftentimes it's just drunken crap, but sometimes I can gleam some pearls that I really hold dear to me.
Self-censorship is underrated.


Quote:

Then Abu should not participate in the life of mainstream Australian forums. This country and its people subscribe to the ideals that are the basis of all Western secular democratic societies and those ideals should be exemplified in its every niche, including this small forum. What does it mean to value our freedoms if we are too lazy, complacent or fearful to defend them?

Maybe the bar gets set somewhere between the acceptance of dishonest customers, to the value of a free society and to the profits that can be obtained by capitalist forces. ..if that makes any sense.
We fight for our freedom on a sliding scale due to the arrogant confidence that we'll continue to fight for our supposed free nation.
Forget the patriotism, we need to start investing where the best opportunites arise. Take on capitalism at it's heart and state that we will not fight for this country because our money is invested elsewhere...just like the capitalist banks.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

To be honest, I sometimes like to write a load of crap and see if it makes any sense to me later on. If it doesn't, then I'll delete it but continue to try to make some sense of it myself. Oftentimes it's just drunken crap, but sometimes I can gleam some pearls that I really hold dear to me.

You've gotta dig a ton of dirt to find a pound of gold.

Sometimes the best place to start is the bottle.

Quote:

You've gotta dig a ton of dirt to find a pound of gold. Sometimes the best place to start is the bottle.

That frikin' bottle is useless.  >:(
The bottle hasn't always been kind to me, but then again, neither has anybody else.
If you feel that there is something in need of looking for, then you should search Imo. Whatever gets you there, or whatever gives you some clues is a worthwhile pursuit.
If you ever get there, like religious instructions that state "You are here", then I think that that would be pretty pointless to the remainder of your life.
If I ever reached my intended destination, then I'd be in need of a new drug.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:

Quote: You've gotta dig a ton of dirt to find a pound of gold. Sometimes the best place to start is the bottle. That frikin' bottle is useless.  >:(

Aww, come on... I know you don't believe that.


Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:

The bottle hasn't always been kind to me

It's not kind to anyone... Besides, it's not kindness you should be looking for at the bottom of the bottle... It's truth.

Quote:

It's not kind to anyone... Besides, it's not kindness you should be looking for at the bottom of the bottle... It's truth.

The worm?

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Quote: It's not kind to anyone... Besides, it's not kindness you should be looking for at the bottom of the bottle... It's truth. The worm?

The worm of truth... Sartre's singing in his grave.

Quote:

Aww, come on... I know you don't believe that.

Yeah it's OK..I like it  :D
Better a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal labotomy..or so it goes.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Aww, come on... I know you don't believe that. Yeah it's OK..I like it  :D

Now you're talkin...

sláinte gaelach

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

sláinte gaelach

Now it all makes sense.

Quote:

sláinte gaelach

Are you disappointed that I won't keep up the fight?
I need some happy time mate. I'll probably come back to it later on in some respect. But for now, I'm happy enough to have done my nana and to have said my piece.
I'm trying to govern myself for which I consider myself able. That's hard enough to do by myself without extraneous influences.
I won't accept lies due to alcohol any more than I would accept lies due to Islam.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:58pm:

Quote: sláinte gaelach Are you disappointed that I won't keep up the fight?

It's an Irish toast... Like... Cheers... Y'know

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:58pm:

I won't accept lies due to alcohol any more than I would accept lies due to Islam.

;D

Now that is funny...

Quote:

Now that is funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY

Quote:

It's an Irish toast... Like... Cheers... Y'know

Yeah, been there. But also incorporating unsaid untruths. You know it.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Quote: It's an Irish toast... Like... Cheers... Y'know Yeah, been there. But also incorporating unsaid untruths. You know it.

Ahh there's a little bit of puritan in most drinkers... But the inner puritan... He don't like the dark... He like's to get up just before the dawn and wake you up with his righteous castigation.

Quote:

sláinte gaelach

Good when you're over there ..but:


Quote:

"here's to cheating, stealing, fighting & drinking.

Umm..sorry - jail tems?


Quote:

if you cheat, may you cheat death. if you steal, may you steal the heart of the one you love. if you fight, may you fight for a brother & if you drink, may you drink with me."

Not allowed to cheat under any circumstance sorry.
You may buy the heart of the one you temporarily love.
No fighting without a jail term unless for the big brother, then you might get a medal.
A drink with you might be OK, we'll check the rules.

Amadd wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

Not allowed to cheat under any circumstance sorry. You may buy the heart of the one you temporarily love. No fighting without a jail term unless for the big brother, then you might get a medal. A drink with you might be OK, we'll check the rules.

Prost!

Cheers

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 10:03pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2010 at 9:41pm: Are you going to sit in judgement and decide which speech should be allowed and which must be deleted in case people get the wrong idea? In the name of free speech? Disallow deletions of posts except where a "senior" moderator agrees while allowing redaction - editing only instances offensive language / comments in the interests of appropriate representation of all posters' views.

I've already done that. Only senior moderators are allowed to delete posts here.

Quote:

It wasn't a demand FD, it was a request. Fair enough, the topic shouldn't be removed. Other people had spent time posting their comments there as did I. However, I do think that it's a neccessity to highlight the fact that the discussion may be distorted due to gagging and censoring by the moderator, or in this case, the dictator.

-Ammad

Any comments posted here may be removed at any time by the moderator. Posts will, or may be removed on the basis of using swear words, being disrespectful to Islam, being disrespectful to Allah, being disrespectful to any muslims, being disrespectful to any Islamic ideals or aspirations, showing Islam in a negative light, questioning Islam's superiority, denying Islam's right to claim it's place as the sole true religion for all humans, making fun of women wearing tents, making fun of men wearing a dress and sandals, insinuating Islam is not the religion of peace, not condemning Israel to obliteration, not highlighting that jews are evil, mentioning suicide bombers, talking about seventy two virgins, talking about women's rights, not supporting polygamy, not supporting the right of muslims to show greater loyalty to foreign theocracies than to australia, not to ask about cutting pubes, not to mention shows that may show a stick drawing called mohammed, and finally, no teddy bear jokes.
Addendum; any and all posts that do not meet those or any other standards I hold now, or may hold in the future, may also be deleted by me, whenever I want, because I say so.

SOUND FAIR???

I'll sign on the proviso that teddy can stay.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 9:10am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 13th, 2010 at 10:03pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2010 at 9:41pm: Are you going to sit in judgement and decide which speech should be allowed and which must be deleted in case people get the wrong idea? In the name of free speech? Disallow deletions of posts except where a "senior" moderator agrees while allowing redaction - editing only instances offensive language / comments in the interests of appropriate representation of all posters' views. I've already done that. Only senior moderators are allowed to delete posts here.

Then that role should be granted only for so long as the moderator adheres to the principles of reasonable, free speech. But, really, a post should be redacted as opposed to deleted, so its existence is still visible to others reading the thread.

The criteria for what is reasonable should reflect what is reasonable to Australians in Australia... Not what is reasonable to the apparatchik of the Islamic Republic in Iran.

For most senior moderators, the role is very restricted to a single board.

The criteria for what is reasonable should reflect the personal taste of the board mod, on the grounds that not every Australian thinks the same way, and people should have a bit of choice rather than having the same regime imposed on them everywhere.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 6:02pm:

and people should have a bit of choice rather than having the same regime imposed on them everywhere.

More Orwellian irony... ;D

Quote:

But, really, a post should be redacted as opposed to deleted, so its existence is still visible to others reading the thread.

I think that's a necessary ingredient for free judgement and free choice.
Without factual information, the judgement (which we all do, nomatter how much we say that we don't judge) and the resulting actions of those judgements will be in sacrifice to our capabilities.


Quote:

The criteria for what is reasonable should reflect what is reasonable to Australians in Australia... Not what is reasonable to the apparatchik of the Islamic Republic in Iran.

I'm greatful to have the opportinity to experience in some respects what it would like to live in a nation governed by religious law.
To keep it in perspective, this is a chat forum. Abu's board is a small part of a chat forum of which there are many.
It's sorta like walking down a long street of multi-cultural restaurants and having a taste at each of them and then deciding what tastes good and what doesn't. If I don't like a particular restaurant, then I'm not forced to go there. I can go next door and bag the neighbor's halal menu or I can simply enjoy the cuisine which is more to my taste.

Political views will obviously arouse more emotions to that which is satiable to the taste buds, but I had an idea of the political flavour on offer before I walked in the door and it would wrong of me to demand that all boards have political "steak and chips" on their menu just to satisfy my personal political taste buds.

Amadd wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Political views will obviously arouse more emotions to that which is satiable to the taste buds, but I had an idea of the political flavour on offer before I walked in the door and it would wrong of me to demand that all boards have political "steak and chips" on their menu just to satisfy my personal political taste buds.

The trouble with analogies...

I'm guessing you'd not expect to be assaulted or thrown out of the "restaurant" just for talking about "steak and chips", would you?

Quote:

The trouble with analogies... I'm guessing you'd not expect to be assaulted or thrown out of the "restaurant" just for talking about "steak and chips", would you?

Yeah analogies are just analogies, but it goes someway towards  explaining the perspective that I have of it now, which is probably similar to what FD had intended.
No I wouldn't expect to be thrown out of an Indian restaurant for talking about steak and chips, but I wouldn't expect or demand that it be on the menu either. Likewise, the Indian owners shouldn't go to the Greek restaurant next door and demand that Rogan Josh be on their menu.

Amadd wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 11:35am:

Yeah analogies are just analogies, but it goes someway towards  explaining the perspective that I have of it now, which is probably similar to what FD had intended. No I wouldn't expect to be thrown out of an Indian restaurant for talking about steak and chips, but I wouldn't expect or demand that it be on the menu either. Likewise, the Indian owners shouldn't go to the Greek restaurant next door and demand that Rogan Josh be on their menu.

But you'd agree that you would expect to be free to speak of "steak and chips" in the Indian and Greek restaurants...

Quote:

But you'd agree that you would expect to be free to speak of "steak and chips" in the Indian and Greek restaurants...

Yes I'd expect to be free to speak of them, but not free to display any images of them   :D