# Censorship



## vanguard (Aug 14, 2002)

Censorship is terrible.  The forum in which I use my voice was taken away because I didn't drink the kool-aid.

I wonder if this thread will be removed too?

Vanguard


----------



## Paragon (Aug 14, 2002)

give it a rest man...chill.


----------



## vanguard (Aug 14, 2002)

So this is where negative threads go to die.  You don't need to delete it when you have a forum like this.

Vanguard


----------



## edX (Aug 14, 2002)

actually, since i got a burr up my butt and started sending all the opinion oriented threads here, this forum has become very active and full of the kinds of debates you typically like vanguard.  

i must say that if admin is guilty of censorship in this case, then he is guilty of censoring us all. indiscriminately. the good as well as the bad. nobody got picked on or singled out. it's like in school where the whole class gets punished becasue one person screwed up. it never seems fair, but it often works. i know i missed the site while it was down, hopefully some of the people who come here to be abusive will have as well and think a little more before they constantly post the same whine in every other thread.

i know i enjoyed my day off of having to read everyone of these whiners' ramblings. (and no, i'm not referring to you vanguard, but i think you can figure out who i do mean  ) i'm not talking about legitimate site regulars who wanted to vent their frustrations. all that is fine and good. i'm talking about little gang of posters who start threads to stir up all the emotions and then stoke the fires with their bad attitudes. 

while i always find it an entertaining pleasure to disagree with you vanguard, it is often a bigger headache than i feel i deserve to just read these repetitive bitch sessions from this handful of little ugly mythical creatures.

there now i have vented a bit about that and feel better. thanks for giving me the proper opening to do so my friend.


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

I have never in all my years as an American seen such a blatant disrespect for the rights blessed upon us by our first amendment (The Freedom of Speech). How dare the administrator force us as fellow American citizens to keep our opinions silent while they give voice to their own.

I agree whole-heartedly with admin's view of Apple Computers and products, and I too dislike the negativity some members of this forum choose to express. But thats their opinion and they have a right to it! Thats what makes it a forum!

Webster defines FORUM as: a medium in which the public may debate an issue or express opinions.

The bulletin message said that this is not meant to censor thoughts or opinions but that is exactly what admin is doing. What if when confronted with an unruly crowd our police officers simply opened fire in protest. It may solve the problem of dealing with an unruly crowd but what would it do to the community as a whole? What did admin do to our community yesterday?

If admin wanted to protest they should have abandoned their instincts to use Nazi-like tactics and seized the opportunity to be the bigger person. They should have protested by writing in our forum. Today, I am ashamed to be a member of this community.

DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP!

(Ed  Run free, it's not worth it!)


----------



## evildan (Aug 15, 2002)

bigbadbill,

You can't have an America without a little give and take.

Admin had the right to protest in the manner in which he feels fit. You may not like it, but that's kind of the point. A protest is meant to invoke thought.

I'm happy to see protests, peaceful ones of course, even if I don't agree with the cause. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in. Especially when people see one "injustice" and not another.

I'll let you chew on that one for awhile.



> I have never in all my years as an American seen such a blatant disrespect for the rights blessed upon us by our first amendment



Really? Check your history book. It shouldn't take you long to find an example of the misuse of the first amendment in there.

If taking down a bulletin board website for 24 hours somehow violates the first amendment I guess they must have come out with a new version of the document since last I read it.

I think you're overreacting just a bit.


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

evildan

This didn't take long to chew on since it was mostly fluff ...

You know, I did check my history book, for 4 years at the University of Michigan. I assume when you said a new version of "the document" you mean the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Here is a direct quote from "the document": _The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments._

I don't belive this line has been changed, and I don't think I need to reiterate its relevance to this subject. Shutting down the site to punish those you disagree with is censorship  plain and simple.

I am not attacking admin for protesting, protests (peacefull ones) are a neccessary part of the democratic proccess. I liken democracy to holding up a wall. The wall will only stand with support from both sides. As soon as one side stops pushing back the whole thing comes crumbling down.

I do however take offence when the playing field is unleveled. When one side decides for everyone what is right and what is wrong.

I wouldn't classify admin's actions yesterday as a protest, at least not a peacefull one. It seemed more like a calculated attack to me.

I don't want to be grouped with the gripers either ... I think that Apple has done a wonderful job of reinventing the market, yet again. I think the products they have recently introduced are both innovative and easy to use. Anyone who dislikes Apple products has other choices. These gripers could choose to go to the PC world, but I suspect they realize that Apple is superior and choose to stick it out hoping their voice will be heard and improvements will be made.

Consequently, I realize that there are other Mac forums I could go to, but I realize that this forum is superior and choose to stick it out hoping my voice will be heard and improvements will be made.

This site is an invaluable tool in my day-to-day operations. To shut it down because a few bad apples (no pun intended) voice their opinions, seems childish to me. I write this with fear of retalliation. I keep expecting to be blocked from this site when I log in for stating my views. Does that resemble freedom to you? Seems more like macosx.com|munisim to me.


----------



## ScottW (Aug 15, 2002)

Personal attacks, even against the Admin are against board rules. Watch what you say.

Admin


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

Personal attacks??? 

I'm not sure what you are refering to. I don't feel _I've_ "attacked" anyone. I feel my post was polite, educated and informative. If some part of my post offended anyone, please accept my apologies. I'm not trying to attack or insult anyone here. Let's discuss this in a professional manner.

Can't we all just get along?

Also, where might one find a list of board rules?


----------



## oldmacuser (Aug 15, 2002)

bigbadbill,

Here is the First Amendment in its entirety:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Just what document were you quoting when you wrote "Here is a direct quote from "the document": The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments."


----------



## Captain Code (Aug 15, 2002)

This is the Admin's board.  He has the right to do whatever he wants with it.  If that means he wants to shut it down, then he can.  This isn't a publicly owned board.  This is his privatly owned board that he lets people post on.

The American laws have no precidence on this board unless this board is being used for a crime.


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

The document would be The Constitution of The United States of America. I never stated that this was a quote from the first amendment. The are a few other lines to the document you know.

The First Amendment was actually writen into the Constitution later (that's why it's called an amendment) This quote was entered into our Constitution June 8, 1789 by James Madison. The special committee later rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's induction, and it eventually became our first amendment.

I am still amazed at how quickly and agressively someone who defends their right to their own opinion is chastised in this forum. Are we not here to debate issues and explore eachother's interests and points of view? Why do some members have to get so uptight when their opinions are questioned? I have heard more complaining, about complaining, then anything else here lately. Not that I'm complaining!


----------



## edX (Aug 15, 2002)

BBB - nobody is going to censure you or ban you for stating your opinion _as long as_ that opinion doesn't include personal judgement about other members of the site. argue your point of view, don't demean the other person's viewpoint. that would include Admin's actions of suspending the site. it is one thing to say you disgreed with those actions for whatever reason and another to call those actions "Nazi-like", which by extention makes admin nazi-like. 

all societies have means of "punishing" their members. one common method that is quite old is banishment. in this case, the whole tribe was deprived of priviledges so it wasn't like just censoring those you disagree with. and what would you say if admin had decided to shut down the site permanently? that he was censuring you by choosing to no longer pay for your medium for expressing your discontent? you might, but you'd be way off base. 

i think there is a long history of good debate on this site. Vanguard and i have taken different points of view in a few of them. yet i respect him greatly. sometimes it isn't waht you say, it's how you say it and that is the case with most of the griping that has been taking place here and elsewhere lately. 

the internet is a priviledge, not a right. this site is even more of a privildge and less of a right. you don't have to agree with anybody here but you do have to play by the rules that you should have read when you registered. ignorance of them is not an excuse. and the idea of this site has always been to have a place where mac users can have a sense of community and hang out with each other. not a place for bashing macs and the people who are happy with them. if people are unhappy and want to switch platforms, then fine. they should switch forums while they're at it instead of hanging around here and predicting the end of apple.

ok, i'm done for now. so where's vanguard?


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by devonferns _
> *This is the Admin's board.  He has the right to do whatever he wants with it.  If that means he wants to shut it down, then he can.  This isn't a publicly owned board.  This is his privatly owned board that he lets people post on.
> 
> The American laws have no precidence on this board unless this board is being used for a crime. *



True,

There is however a Sytem Administrators' Guild (SAGE) and a System Administrator's  Code of Ethics.

System administrators, under any title and whether or not they are members of a professional organization, are relied upon to ensure proper operation, support and protection of computing assets. Unlike most previous technological advances, any problem with a computer system may negatively impact millions of people worldwide, thus such a code of ethics is more crucial than equivalent roles within other technologies.

This is a quote from the SAGE Code of Ethics:

"A system administrator shall not unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of users. System administrators shall not act with, nor tolerate from others, discrimination between users based on any commonly recognized grounds (e.g., age, gender, religion, etc.), except where such discrimination (e.g., with respect to unauthorized users as a class) is a necessary part of their job, and then only to the extent that such treatment is required in dealing with the issue at hand. "

*Flexes* Bring it on!


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 15, 2002)

So that's what admin took offense to.

That post was actually an e-mail that I sent in while the site was down. It was intended for the entire macosx.com administration (not that that's any better) my point being that I was not singeling our admin. Nor was it my intention to insinuate that admin is "Nazi-like". I simply wanted to point out that that actions taken by admin that day were reminiscent of the actions taken by the Nazi party during World War II (i.e. getting rid of anyone different). I'll admit it was pretty harsh and not the most accurate comparison, but I was going for dramatic effect too.

I would like to offer my appologies to admin and the entire macosx.com administration for the comment.

Now, Ed I have the utmost respect for you as an administrator but when you ask me to "don't demean the other person's viewpoint", isn't that what admin did. The view point of all those complainer's is just that, their view point. Wasn't shutting down the site in protest demeaning to their point of view. 

"I know I enjoyed my day off of having to read everyone of these whiners' ramblings." (Doesn't that statement sound a bit demeaning to you?)

Vanguard, where the hell are you, I'm all alone in here!


----------



## QuackingPenguin (Aug 15, 2002)

OOh lookie! the controversial one is back. In case any of you can't remember or weren't here when it happened. i was banned a while ago because i complained about the censorship. yes i call some guy a name. ooh boo-hoo. is this a frickin playground or a forum.? you may not think much of my opinion, but i do have a right to say it. seems to me, admin is using the old 'you keep winning so im gonna take my bat and ball home' tactic. if he doesn't get what he wants, he just stops everyone from using it. that is freaking ridiculous. this is a form centered about apple, right? so surely, without anyone saying their stuff is bad or whatever they were saying, you would lose half the conversations. also. what if all of a sudden, for instance, everyone's best friend 'Ed' decided he didnt like a new... i dont know. a new palmtop device the MIGHT release (no, im not saying they have), and then voiced his OPINION? and what if admin thought it was the bees-knees? would he automatically shut down the site? or ban 'Ed'? or send the Japanese Mafia around to hassle him?

Sure this is the admins' own private forum. and technically i have nothing to say about the first amendment, because im not an american, nor do i live there. point is, whether he can or can't legally do what he does, it is very freaking childish. i mean, use some common sense. you don't like a post, DON'T READ IT!.

thats what i think anyways.
im probably gonna get banned again for this, but then it all seems to have gone to shit since i was here last anyways.


QP


----------



## edX (Aug 15, 2002)

Bill - (can i call you Bill? cause i don't believe you are really bad. i don't know if you're big or not  ) i don't think silencing the board for a day was demeaning to anyone in particular.  i think we all suffered because of it. we missed the site because we like it. we enjoy it. a little reminder of that, no matter what the reasoning behind it, isn't a bad thing. i mean, if the site didn't really matter to you, you wouldn't have cared if it was down. right? 

so why should those of us who have been here a long time have to find our favorite site less enjoyable because of a handful of rabble rousers? i don't see the connectionyou are making with taking actions that suspend operations for 24 hrs and controlling a group of people. you've been allowed to discuss this whole issue, here and elsewhere on the site. and the only person who has suffered any was the one who decided to question another member's intelligence. one troll down. already my job is easier.

honestly, if i didn't believe in your right to disagree, would i bother to engage you in this discussion? i don't think so. i welcome diverse opinions. but i also don't need to hear the same argument 10-20 times from the same person to determine its validity nor to figure out where the person is coming from. i don't even need to hear it from 20 different people, but that's a somewhat seperate issue for me. perhaps i am as tired of the parrots as i am the trolls. but at least each of them believe they are an original voice, even when they aren't. 

i'll also state for the record that i find most of your presentation of your viewpoint to be entirely acceptable from my subjective perceptions of it. you are straightforward and present issues, not slander. i don't believe you meant to personally attack anyone although the implication could be perceived that way. thank you for your apology.

as for me and the use of "whiners", you might have a point there. maybe i am being demeaning there. but so far i haven't attached any names to who those whiners are. if the label feels like it fits, wear it. if not, ignore it. but i'll think about that point some more and perhaps try to tone it down a bit. i can see how it would seem to include some of those who are not really my intended subjects.


----------



## fab5freddy (Aug 16, 2002)

The fact that I can't send messages as P3Z Agent anymore should suggest that this forum S U X.

Ed, it's your choice that you sit and read all the posts all day long. Nobody's putting a gun to your head.

And Admin, this IS a personal attack. Get a life. Not getting your way and taking away everyone's fun is childish. You've set up a forum for people to express their opinions. If the internet can be anything at all, it's a place where people can get out their frustrations without causing wars. But I see in these cases that you guys still take this stuff personally.

Guess what? The odds of us ever meeting face to face are about as long as winning the lottery three times in a row. You'll never know who I am, what I do for a living, how I got here, and, moreover, I haven't seen anyone in hear ever ask.

To treat this forum as though it's some sort of sacred, holy shrine is absoutley, positively, 100% Southpark GAY. A Macintosh is a plastic box full of metal parts with electricity running through it. This forum is a collection of text stored on a server on some part of this Earth. It's not part of your personality. It's not flesh and blood. So stop treating it like it is.

I submit to you, Admin, that your Mac Community is Big Brother in disguise. Your temper-tantrums, double-standards, and lack of standards hardly encourages healthy or fun debates.

So, block my IP address again if you like, I really don't care. 

PS... I actually think the Admin is Ed... he spends too much time in here.

Later,

P3Z Agent (disguised as Fab 5 Freddy)


----------



## uoba (Aug 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fab5freddy _
> *...A Macintosh is a plastic box full of metal parts with electricity running through it. This forum is a collection of text stored on a server on some part of this Earth. It's not part of your personality. It's not flesh and blood. So stop treating it like it is.
> *



Hahahaha... if only you applied your own theory to your very own threads a couple of days ago...


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 16, 2002)

Ed

Bill is fine (as I'm neither big, nor bad!)

You sir are a gentelman and a scolar. Your views are just and fair.

I believe that we who took offence to the site shut down have had our 24 hours of rebuttle and I'd venture to say that our voice has been heard.

We all have a common interest here and there is no reason that I can see to continue spending our day arguing over who is right or wrong. We've played this game from every angle and stalemate seems to be the only outcome.

Lets move on to more important subjects like "what's your HD named?" or "How big is your iPod"

I vote that this thread be closed before it gets ugly in here (unless of course Vanguard is finally gonna come back to life, he started this).

(And by the way Ed, since you live right here in my backyard, I can't help but wonder about your green thumb. How much do we have in common?)


----------



## buttercup (Aug 16, 2002)

Here Bill, let me help you get this thread closed.  That seems to be the popular thing to do here when the Admin decides he doesn't want his actions questioned.

Case in point, this thread started by the infamous azosx.

Yes, I agree, azosx did push the envelop when replying to Cheryl but she at the same time she had no right to talk down to him.

I question why the Admin felt the need to not only ban azosx publicly for "personal attacks", but also close his thread as well while letting threads such as the one at the URL below remain open.

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21216

Not to out anyone but it's obvious to see MikeMc's post was a blatant personal attack against the Admin, calling him such things as a "bitch" and a "coward."  Similar personal attacks exist within threads throughout the forums since August 15.

Now if azosx was banned and his thread closed due to site policy, why is MikeMc not banned and the thread at the URL above closed as well?

Could it be that azosx's thread concerning the Admin's childish behavior had something to do with his being banned?  I also find it curious that the Admin banned azosx publicly then decided 5 minutes later to close the thread in a second post.

To me its obvious azosx was used at a scapegoat to invoke fear in others who may be questioning the Admin's decisions and to keep them from doing so publicly.  His thread was also closed for no reason other than to prevent the possible negative backlash against the Admin that may have ensued.

Some people are sheep and will continue to back the actions of the Admin and praise him for doing what he did for no other reason than to kiss ass in hopes of elevating their forum status.  Obviously they do not understand the importance of Freedom of Speech at what a crime it is to allow themselves to be silenced.


----------



## edX (Aug 16, 2002)

buttercup - freedom of speech ends when it includes slander. that is US law.  how serioulsy such slanders are taken is always up to the individual slandered to determine. around here, we have chosen to take it very seriously. you can argue free speech all you want to and it will always be wrong when the issue of personal attacks and slander are involved. Even in the US, we draw lines as to what you can say and where. 

no doubt you are azosx or pezagent or maybe both. perhaps it is time for you to gather your friends here around you and move on.


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 16, 2002)

I'm sure that admin hasn't read MikeMC's post or he'd be out too. Admin most likely took the rest of the day off to nurse his headache.

While I agree with azosx and mikemc to some degree, they both need to learn a thing or two about tact. You can get a person to listen to you alot easier by talking to them rather than yelling at them. Do you think admin (or anyone else) is going to take anyone who is calling him a b*tch or coward seriously. I know I wouldn't

We need to voice our opinions on this matter in a professinal manner. Do you think posts like that of quackingpenguin found above add any validity to the posts that I have spent hours reasearching and writing.

Besides, this topic has been run into the ground over the last 24 hours (mostly by me) and I really think that admin and ed and all the other administrators are giving validity to the views of those enraged by the "protest".

This world we live in grows smaller by the day, we all need to learn to accept one another's differences a little more readily. I think we should always stand up for what we believe in and give voice to our own opinions, but let's try to do it in a more civil manner.


----------



## buttercup (Aug 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *buttercup - freedom of speech ends when it includes slander. that is US law.  how serioulsy such slanders are taken is always up to the individual slandered to determine. around here, we have chosen to take it very seriously. you can argue free speech all you want to and it will always be wrong when the issue of personal attacks and slander are involved. Even in the US, we draw lines as to what you can say and where.
> 
> no doubt you are azosx or pezagent or maybe both. perhaps it is time for you to gather your friends here around you and move on. *



Oh whatever Ed.  You know I'm not pezagent, check the weblogs if you have any ***** doubt.

Also, suggesting someone learn to read and write is not slander.  Twist the facts to your advantage like you're always so keen on doing but don't think those here with any shread of intelligence don't see right through your manipulative ways.


----------



## edX (Aug 16, 2002)

so i guess if we use the 'troll poll' as our guide, there are only 14 people who visit this site with "any shred of intelligence"?


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 16, 2002)

I consider myself an intelligent person and I feel that Ed here has done a good job of staying unbias. Your allegations are completely unfounded.


----------



## oldmacuser (Aug 16, 2002)

Bill,

If I may I would like to say a few more words regarding the First Amendment of the Constitution and the freedom of speech.

James Madison introduced several proposed amendments in the House of Representatives  on June 8, 1789 one of which was his version of the first amendment: *"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments;* (the part you quoted) and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.'' This was later rewritten  by the special committee and sent   to the Senate. Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language being agreed upon in conference. Some of this you have previously correctly stated.

The First Amendment does  carry much of the wording and certainly the soul of Madison's proposal. T o quote _his_ proposed amendment as the _one that was adopted,_ however, is to do other framers of the Constitution and the Constitution itself an injustice. While Madison's hand is seen at almost every turn in this document, he is not the only one who made this document come to fruition. In later years, when an admirer referred to him as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands." As to the right of freedom of speech being mentioned  elsewhere in the Constitution, I not sure as to where that would be.

So, in light of this Bill, I'm wondering if you might want to rephrase some of your original statements.

From one of your first missives:
*"Here is a direct quote from "the document": The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.  I don't believe this line has been changed, ..."*

From another:
*"The document would be The Constitution of The United States of America. I never stated that this was a quote from the first amendment. The are a few other lines to the document you know."*

When the subject is as important as the right of freedom of speech and what the Constitution says about it, I feel it behooves us to state it correctly.


----------



## bigbadbill (Aug 16, 2002)

I'm not really sure what your point is (or your intent), and I'm not really interested in spending any more of my time discussing this with someone who is obviously hell-bent on proving me wrong. Our Constituion is constantly evolving and my point was that our rights to express ourselves are even outlined within, which I was reminded admin may actually choose to ignore if he like, having no legal obligation.

However if anyone _is_ interested in exploring our Constitution they should visit: http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hal.../constitution/constitution_transcription.html


----------

