SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Pastimes"I STILL own the ban button, buddy"


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Greg or e who wrote (2094)9/21/2013 9:39:43 AM
From: average joe
   of 2133
 
Is that what you sell to make ends meet?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: average joe who wrote (2095)9/21/2013 12:15:13 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 2133
 
<you prefer the Browning poo flinger? :)>

That IS your weapon of choice. Those backfires really suck don't they?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Greg or e who wrote (2096)9/21/2013 12:19:53 PM
From: average joe
   of 2133
 
I can only defer to your expertise on that subject.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: average joe who wrote (2097)9/21/2013 12:46:14 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 2133
 
Fine, then I'm happy that you're happy being a poo flinger.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e1/11/2014 10:11:11 PM
   of 2133
 
"ALL YOUR GALILEOS ARE OURS"
..............................

Bullied and Badgered, Pressured and Purged
Posted on December 26, 2013 by Handle

This is a placeholder website for the chronicling of … an inchoate abstraction that will, eventually, adequately describe the agglomeration. ‘Inquisition’ isn’t too far off.

It is a list of prominent (mostly) leftist/progressive intimidation incidents, or profiles in preemptive cowardice in anticipation thereof, or firings because of ludicrous and exaggerated PC claims of ‘offensiveness’ (usually concerning mere jokes) that I wish had been deterred or handled differently. Also taboo-witch-hunts (is there a good word for a person who is a ‘taboo-truth-witch’ that is better than ‘heretic’, ‘apostate’, or ‘blasphemer’?)

We are all Galileos now. Bleg from all of you to help me expand it via crowd-sourcing. The dates are not consistent, sometimes it is from the ‘offending event’, other times it is from the purging or just the publication dates of the news stories. To keep the list short, I won’t include descriptions, so follow the links and google it if you want to learn more about these sad sagas.

(UPDATE: It looks like some comment thread over at Reason is referring a bunch of people over here.)

(UPDATE2: Welcome visitors from Chateau Heartiste , Vox‘s, and Steve Sailer’s. As of 11-JAN-2014, this post has now been read by over 10,000 people.)

  1. 20-APR-1968: Enoch Powell purged from British Conservative Party.
  2. 1969-1973: The ‘original’ race and intelligence ‘controversy’ hysteria over Jensen, Herrnstein, Draper, Wilson, and Shockley, et al. ( see also Sociobiology)
  3. 19-JAN-1988: Jimmy ‘The Greek’ Snyder purged from CBS.
  4. 1989-1991 (and continuing): Related to the above, Linda Gottfredson’s torturous path.
  5. NOV-1990: John Strugnell purged from the Dead Sea Scrolls project.
  6. 22-APR-1991: William F. Buckley devotes an entire issue of National Review to “In Search of Anti-Semitism: What Christians Provoke What Jews? Why? By Doing What? — And Vice Versa.” focused greatly on Pat Buchanan (and timed to coincide with his big for Presidential candidacy). Later, collected with responses, into a book.
  7. 1993 – Jospeh Sobran purged from National Review.
  8. 27-JUN-1995: Sam Francis purged from the Washington Times.
  9. 23-APR-1995: Frank Urban “Fuzzy” Zoeller loses his sponsors after Tiger Woods joke.
  10. 15-JAN-1999: David Howard purged for his vocabulary.
  11. 01-FEB-1999: Glenn Hoddle purged as England’s soccer coach
  12. 17-SEP-2001: Bill Maher purged from ABC (well, ok, just reassigned to HBO, he’s doing great)
  13. 02-OCT-2001: Ann Coulter purged from National Review ( NR’s version here).
  14. 2001: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together goes unpublished in the U.S.
  15. MAY-2002: Geoffrey Sampson purged by the UK Conservatives.
  16. 17-JUN-2002: Rev. Stephen Boissoin persecuted by Canadian Human Rights Commission.
  17. 2003: J. Michael Bailey two-minutes-hated and investigated for ethics after publishing ‘ The Man Who Would Be Queen‘.
  18. 17-OCT-2003: Greg Easterbrook purged from ESPN (and his content memory-holed)
  19. 15-MAR-2004: Ted Rall purged from New York Times. (it’s a thing with him, see below)
  20. 19-JAN-2005: Lawrence Summers purged from Harvard
  21. 25-JULY-2005: Michael Graham purged from WMAL.
  22. 26-OCT-2005: Fisher DeBerry probably purged from U.S. Air Force Academy (left a year after controversy over his comments)
  23. JAN-2006: Fr. Alphonse de Valk persecuted by Canadian Human Rights Commission.
  24. 11-FEB-2006: Ezra Levant investigated after publishing Mohammad photos in Western Standard.
  25. 20-OCT-2006: Mark Steyn investigated after writing about islam in MacLean’s..
  26. 20-NOV-2006: Michael Richards (“Kramer”) purged from the biz.
  27. 04-APR-2007: Don Imus purged from CBS and NBC.
  28. 22-MAY-2007: Comedian Guy Earle fined for mocking a lesbian heckler.
  29. 07-JUN-2007: Isaiah Washington purged from Grey’s Anatomy and ABC.
  30. 16-OCT-2007: James Watson investigated and purged.
  31. 31-OCT-2008: Everybody goes berserk on the Mormons because of proposition-8 support. (google for more).
  32. 24-APR-2009: Ted Rall purged from United Media. (see below, again)
  33. 06-MAY-2009: Michael Savage banned from Britain.
  34. 13-OCT-2009: Thilo Sarrazin purged from Bundesbank
  35. 30-APR-2010: Stephanie Grace and the case of her infamous Harvard email.
  36. 01-MAY-2010: Peter Duesberg investigated by UC Berkeley. ( later dropped, though I think his clinging to his AIDS stuff over all the years of contrary evidence is pure derp, but still if shouldn’t have had the effect on Charlton below.)
  37. 11-MAY-2010: Bruce Charlton purged from Medical Hypothesis.
  38. 04-JUN-2010: Steve Blair purged by KYCA radio.
  39. 10-AUG-2010: Dr. Laura Schlessinger eased off the air for discussing whether the use of the word ‘nigger’ could ever be appropriate. Here’s some Chris Rock, “The correct answer is, ‘Not really’.”
  40. 01-OCT-2010: Rick Sanchez purged from CNN.
  41. 08-OCT-2010: Juan Williams purged from NPR.
  42. 07-MAR-2011: Cathy and Fred ‘Gopher’ Grandy purged from WMAL.
  43. 27-APR-2011: Simon Ledger arrested for singing ‘Kung-Fu Fighting’.
  44. 16-MAY-2011: Satoshi Kanazawa purged from Psychology Today.
  45. 01-AUG-2011: Principal Frank Borzellieri purged from Archdiocese of NY Schools.
  46. 18-NOV-2011: Sepp Blater pressured within FIFA.
  47. 29-NOV-2011: Emma West arrested for snakes on a plane racism on a train.
  48. 17-FEB-2012: Patrick Buchanan purged from MSNBC.
  49. 01-MAR-2012: Rush Limbaugh advertisers pressured to bail after Fluke slut comment.
  50. 05-APR-2012: John Derbyshire purged from National Review.
  51. 10-APR-2012: Robert Weissberg purged from National Review.
  52. 30-APR-2012: Naomi Riley purged from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  53. 16-MAY-2012: Manny Pacquiao ‘on defensive’ on same-sex marriage
  54. 22-MAY-2012: Andy Gipson threatened for quoting Bible on gays.
  55. 22-MAY-2012: Mark Traina purged from New Orleans Public Schools.
  56. 02-JUL-2010: Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A pressured.
  57. 15-JUL-2012: Mark Steyn published column that got him sued by Michael Mann. ( ongoing!)
  58. 25-JUL-2012: Paraskevi “Voula” Papachristou purged from 2012 Olympics for making light of matters involving sacred objects.
  59. 27-SEP-2012: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula arrested for violating parole by producing that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ movie, or something. A strange case all around, I’ll admit.
  60. 02-OCT-2012: Lewiston, Maine Mayor Robert MacDonald scolded for comments related to Somali immigrants.
  61. 17-MAR-2013: ‘Dongle-Gate’, dongle-joker-geeks purged.
  62. 20-MAR-2013: Steven Landsburg gets two-minutes-hated for a thought experiment.
  63. 03-APR-2013: Terri Proud purged from Arizona VA
  64. 10-MAY-2013: Jason Richwine purged from Heritage
  65. 17-MAY-2013: Paula Deen purged.
  66. 30-MAY-2013: Gordon Gee purged from Ohio State University ( he’s going to West Virginia now)
  67. 04-JUN-2013: Geoffrey Miller two-minutes-hated for ‘fat shaming’.
  68. 05-JUN-2013: Nissim Yeshaya purged from Israel Court.
  69. 07-JUN-2013: April Sims purged from Dallas Police Dept.
  70. 20-JUN-2013: Mike Krahulik gets two-minutes-hated for ‘transphobia’.
  71. 03-JUL-2013: Aaryn Gries purged from Zephyr Talent.
  72. 12-JULY-2013: Orson Scott Card threatened with Ender’s Game boycott. (See also his mothballed Superman project)
  73. 20-JULY-2013: Ron Unz purged from The American Conservative for this.
  74. 08-AUG-2013: Richard Dawkins gets a taste of the Zeitgeist.
  75. 14-AUG-2013: Vox Day purged from Science Fiction Writers of America.
  76. 27-AUG-2013: Tuffy Gessling purged from Rodeo Clowning.
  77. 04-SEP-2013: Yelena Isinbayeva almost purged as Russian Olympic Ambassador.
  78. 10-SEP-2013: Pax Dickinson purged from Business Insider.
  79. 25-SEP-2013: Barilla CEO, Guido Barilla pressured on gay marriage.
  80. 25-SEP-2013: David Gilmour two-minutes-hated for literature judgment.
  81. 26-OCT-2013: Don Yelton purged from local GOP because of Daily Show.
  82. 14-NOV-2013: Helmuth Nyborg investigated for ‘scientific dishonesty’ (he was also purged in 2006)
  83. 26-NOV-2013: Alec Baldwin purged from MSNBC not for vulgarity, ha!, but for swearing in that impermissiable way.
  84. 28-NOV-2013: Ted Rall purged from Daily Kos.
  85. 03-DEC-2013: Bob Dylan threatened by French prosecutor.
  86. 10-DEC-2013: Chip Wilson purged from Lululemon.
  87. 12-DEC-2013: Bob Newhart intimidated.
  88. 19-DEC-2013: Phil Robertson purged from A&E.
  89. 20-DEC-2013: Justine Sacco purged from IAC.
  90. 20-DEC-2013: Dawn Barnett found guilty and sent to diversity training over a Golliwogg comment (HT: Derb)
  91. 02-JAN-2014: Heartiste threatened with blog memory-holing via WordPress malicious prosecution ( Kevin Conboy)? It wouldn’t be the first time a blog was suddenly disappeared.
That list is already harrowing, and I know it’s just getting started.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Greg or e who wrote (2099)1/15/2014 2:04:26 AM
From: average joe
   of 2133
 
Emotions flow as Calif. officers acquitted in death of homeless man who struggled with police

By: Gillian Flaccus, The Associated Press

Posted: 01/13/2014 11:31 PM |

The Orange County panel on Monday found Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli not guilty of all charges — including manslaughter — in the 2011 death of Kelly Thomas.

A surveillance video showed police pummeling and stun-gunning him.

SANTA ANA, Calif. - By the time all four verdicts were read clearing two California officers of killing a homeless man, people on both sides of the gallery were sobbing.

In the audience, the mother of Kelly Thomas wept into a tissue as someone shouted, "No!" A collective gasp went up from the gallery. Former Officer Jay Cicinelli's attorney pounded twice on the defence table, grabbing his client in a bear hug, as former Officer Manuel Ramos' family clutched hands and cried.

Thomas, 37, died five days after a violent confrontation with six officers in July 2011. A surveillance camera at the busy transit centre where the incident unfolded captured him screaming for his father again and again and begging for air as the police kneed him, jolted him with an electric stun gun and used the blunt end to strike him around the face and head.

It was a rare case in which police officers were charged in a death involving actions on duty. Jurors took less than two days to reach their verdicts.

Ramos, 39, was acquitted of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter on Monday. Cicinelli, 41, was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckus, who tried the case himself, said after the verdicts that charges will be dropped against Joseph Wolfe, a third officer awaiting trial.

The FBI said that it will review the evidence to determine whether federal action is justified.

"With the conclusion of the state court trial, investigators will examine the evidence and testimony to determine whether further investigation is warranted at the federal level," said Laura Eimiller, the FBI's spokeswoman in Los Angeles.

Outside court, Thomas' parents condemned the verdicts.

"Just horrified," Cathy Thomas said. "He got away with murdering my son."

Ron Thomas said the verdict gave police "carte blanche" to brutalize people.

"All of us need to be very afraid now," he said. "Police officers everywhere can beat us, kill us, whatever they want, but it has been proven right here today they'll get away with it."

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, said jurors did their duty.

"These peace officers were doing their jobs," he said. "They were operating as they were trained, and they had no malice in their hearts."

The defence said Thomas started the confrontation by refusing to heed police orders and was fighting officers so much that they called for backup multiple times. At one point, the lawyers said, Thomas tried to reach for Cicinelli's stun gun.

Ron Thomas has countered that his son suffered from schizophrenia and didn't understand the officers.

The video began with Ramos stopping Thomas on July 5, 2011, after the officer answered a call about a disheveled man jiggling the handles of car doors in a busy transit centre parking lot.

Ramos grew frustrated with Thomas, who wasn't following orders to sit on a curb with his hands on his knees.

Just before the altercation began, Ramos snapped on plastic gloves, made two fists and then held them in front of Thomas' face as he said, "Now see these fists? They're going to (expletive) you up."

Cicinelli, who arrived a few moments later, jolted Thomas several times with an electric stun gun and used the butt end to hit Thomas in the head and face, breaking bones.

Thomas was taken off life support five days later.

A county pathologist concluded that Thomas died, in part, from asphyxiation caused by injuries he received during the confrontation.

Defence attorneys said Thomas suffered from an enlarged heart from drug abuse, and his exertions during the struggle were too much for him.

Thomas' death led to days of protests in Fullerton, a Southern California college town, forced the recall of three City Council members and led the police chief to step down.

After the verdicts, Fullerton Police Chief Dan Hughes issued a statement urging people to express their feelings "respectfully."

Several dozen protesters gathered outside the courthouse after the verdict waving signs, and a similar size crowd gathered at the transit centre where the struggle occurred later Monday night, but both demonstrations were peaceful and there were no reported arrests. A memorial with flowers and candles was set up at the transit centre, and people wrote messages to Thomas in a guest book.

During the trial, the defence told jurors that Thomas was not a peaceful, helpless man. They said he had a history of drug use and was homeless because he had attacked members of his own family.

Cathy Thomas testified that he choked her for several minutes during an argument, and Thomas' grandfather said Thomas attacked him with a fireplace poker in 1995.

He did not have any drugs or alcohol in his system the night of the incident.

Only a handful of police officers nationwide have been charged with murder for actions taken while on duty, and convictions in those cases are rare, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a law professor at Chapman University School of Law and a former federal prosecutor.

Unless the prosecution can prove the officers falsified reports or covered up evidence, jurors are usually willing to acquit, he said.

"Police officers are very unusual kinds of defendants because ... they are seen as acting not in their own interests but acting to protect the public at large, the very people sitting on their jury," Rosenthal said.

Jurors are willing to forgive lapses in judgment rather than put an officer "in the cage with the same people that officer has spent his life arresting," he said.

_____

Associated Press writers Amy Taxin, Raquel Maria Dillon and Robert Jablon contributed to this report.

winnipegfreepress.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Greg or e1/15/2014 3:34:20 AM
   of 2133
 
The Real Denier

Jan 14, 2014 at 9:28 am




Political activist, serial litigant and part-time scientist Michael Mann on the campaign trail with Democrat candidate Terry McAuliffe

Over at Real Clear Politics, Robert Tracinski muses on the degradation of "global warming" into " a textbook case of pseudo-science":

One of the famous characteristics of pseudo-science is that it is "unfalsifiable." That is, the theory is constructed in such a way that there is no evidence that could possibly refute it. The classic example is Freudian psychoanalysis, which tells you that you have an Oedipus Complex, and if you deny it, that's just proof that you're repressing it...

"Climate-change" theory is similarly irrefutable:

So sea water is freezing because it is melting.

Note that there is never any pause to acknowledge that maybe scientists should investigate the hypothesis that warming isn't as big or inevitable as they have predicted. No, it's on to the next ad hoc rationalization. That's the basic pattern: an unproven theory reinforces itself in the face of contradictory evidence by generating additional unproven theories.

A relatively small number of us find Big Climate's pretzel-like exertions hilarious and ridiculous. But should we be allowed to do so? To those who believe in his magical "hockey stick", the fake Nobel Laureate Dr Michael Mann's current legal battles are the result of "denialists" denying him the freedom to practice his "science". But look at the actual court cases and a different picture emerges. First, Mann's case before the Virginia Supreme Court:

A conservative advocacy group, the American Tradition Institute, filed the initial request for documents, and the University was apparently inclined to agree to much of the request until Mann, the American Association of University Professors, and other groups urged them not to.

So, yes, ATI is "right-wing" and the University of Virginia isn't. Yet the latter didn't have a problem with the former's freedom-of-information request until Dr Mann shoved his hockey stick into the case and demanded they say no. Who else has muscled their way in? Well, The Washington Post, National Public Radio and a bunch of other impeccably non-right-wing media organizations filed amici briefs - against Mann:

On the other side, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has joined 17 media organizations in arguing that the records-request exemption being sought by [Dr Mann and] the university is so broad that it would effectively gut the law at issue, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, hindering journalists' ability to cover public institutions.

So, if Mann prevails, he would "gut" freedom of information in Virginia. (You can read the full brief here.)

What else would he gut? Well, in his case against me and National Review, amici briefs were filed by, again, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Los Angeles Times, NBC et al, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And they also weighed in against Mann:

Twenty-four hours later, the ACLU also filed an amicus brief in support of NR and our fellow defendants and against what they call "the intimidating effect such lawsuits can have on free speech." And they're very strong on a couple of key points — that what they call "the value protecting of free speech on issues of public interest" is paramount, and that in suits like these the litigant's goal is not to win or lose but "to intimidate the advocate 'into silence.'"

So, if Mann prevails in the NR case, he would "gut" freedom of speech. The only "denialist" here is Dr Michael E Mann. He wants to deny his critics the right to engage in satire, in word-play, and (in the NR/CEI case) metaphor and analogy. Because he is too insecure and dull-witted to defeat his opponents in debate, he insists they must be denied basic freedoms - from freedom of information to freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry to freedom of parody. All this while spending the fall on the campaign trail and in TV ads as an explicitly political activist. So a political figure is also insisting that he, uniquely, must be beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of political debate.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the ACLU grasp what's really at stake here. The only denialist is Michael Mann, denier of freedom.

(PS Several readers have asked if I have a legal-defense fund. No, and I don't really care for them. But, if you want to support the cause of free speech, you could do far worse than buy a copy of Lights Out from the SteynOnline bookstore. Or, if you're in the vicinity, swing by to one of the stops on my Florida tour - I'll be giving away my antidote to Mann's hockey stick, the Liberty Stick.)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: average joe1/20/2014 8:17:57 PM
   of 2133
 
Priest admits to gambling away church money at casino



CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Monday, January 20, 2014 6:28PM EST

A Catholic priest pleaded guilty Monday to fraud and theft, after admitting to gambling away money stolen from Ottawa’s Blessed Sacrament Church.

Father Joseph LeClair admitted at his preliminary hearing Monday morning that he has a gambling problem, and that he defrauded the church of $130,000 over a five-year period.

He admitted to pocketing $16,000 from the collection plate, and thousands of dollars in fees from marriage preparation courses to pay his gambling debts accrued at Casino Lac Leamy.

Related Storie



Father Joseph LeClair pleaded guilty Monday to defrauding Ottawa's Blessed Sacrament Church of $130,000.

LeClair, who had served 14 years at the church, stepped down in 2011 after media reports first exposed his gambling problem. In July 2012, he was charged with fraud over $5,000 and theft over $5,000, which he pleaded guilty to on Monday.

Despite stealing money to feed his gambling habit, a number of parishioners showed up in court Monday to support LeClair. One woman wiped tears from her eyes throughout the proceedings.

And in a written statement issued Monday after LeClair’s guilty plea, Archbishop Terrence Prendergast said the Ottawa Archdiocese will continue to support LeClair in his recovery.

"Despite this difficult decision affecting Fr. LeClair’s life, I know that he is relieved to have this painful moment behind him. I share his desire, and that of the many people who supported him over the last two years, to move on and to look to the future,” the statement said.

Prendergast also said that despite being encouraged to pursue the matter outside the criminal system, he referred the issue to the police because of the “need of our Catholic Church to be transparent about such matters.”

“With Fr. LeClair, we now look to the future, understanding that the court’s decision on sentencing will be part of any future plan. In a courageous and very public way, Fr. LeClair admitted to the addictions which were harmful to him personally and to his pastoral ministry,” Prendergast wrote.

In his time at the church in Ottawa’s Glebe neighbourhood, LeClair, who had a reputation as a charismatic speaker, had attracted a large following.

After reports of his gambling habits surfaced in 2011, the Archdiocese of Ottawa launched an audit on church finances.

Ottawa police allege more than $240,000 was misappropriated from 2006 to 2011, while an additional $160,000 was unaccounted for. It’s alleged that $20,000 in furniture and household items belonging to the parish was also taken from the rectory when LeClair left the church. Police say the items were later recovered from a house outside of Ontario.

LeClair will be back in court Tuesday.

With files from CTV Ottawa’s Kate Eggins and The Canadian Press

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/priest-admits-to-gambling-away-church-money-at-casino-1.1647927#ixzz2qzWvczkN

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: average joe who wrote (2102)1/20/2014 9:09:18 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 2133
 
Please don't post gratuitously OFF TOPIC articles here.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Greg or e who wrote (2103)1/20/2014 10:12:15 PM
From: average joe
   of 2133
 
Please don't post gratuitously OFF TOPIC articles here...
It is a religious story about the power of forgiveness... Not one of your nine revisions say that is off topic.

1)
08/13/2012 10:01:38 PM
<--

This is a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban, or beat them up.

THERE IS NO BAN BUTTON HERE

Your ideas will have to sink or swim on their own merits. So welcome to the Market.

2)
01/26/2010 06:09:18 PM
<--

This is a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban, or beat them up.

THERE IS NO BAN BUTTON HERE

Your ideas will have to sink or swim on their own merits. So welcome to the Market.

3)
07/22/2008 03:53:51 PM <--

Have you been bullied, banned and shouted down because the intellectual lightweights and anti-religious bigots who "STILL own the ban button, Buddy" on their "moderated" insular and ghettoized threads? They can't handle being challenged on a level playing field in the area of ideas, so they ban you and then make snide remarks about you that you can't respond to.

This thread is a place where the Free Market of Ideas will determine winners and losers, not some jerk with his or her finger on the ban button. Of course those same cowards and lightweights will show up here as well, but only to hit and run back to the safety of their little gangs of sycophantic obsequious fluffers.

This is a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban, or beat them up.

THERE IS NO BAN BUTTON HERE

Your ideas will have to sink or swim on their own merits. So welcome to the Market.

4)
11/23/2005 12:06:52 PM
<--

I hope this will be a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and even Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them. Insults are to be discouraged, but don't dish them out if you are not prepared to take them in return. If you can't out think your opponent, simply hurling insults just makes YOU look shallow and stupid. So lets try and see if we can discuss issues and leave personal attacks aside.

All opinions are welcome but be ready to substantiate them with facts or reasoned arguments."

5)
11/22/2005 07:58:03 PM
<--

THE ORIGINAL THREAD HEADER IS BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND!

I hope this will be a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and even Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them. Insults are to be discouraged, but don't dish them out if you are not prepared to take them in return. If you can't out think your opponent, simply hurling insults just makes YOU look shallow and stupid. So lets try and see if we can discuss issues and leave personal attacks aside.

All opinions are welcome but be ready to substantiate them with facts or reasoned arguments."

6)
11/14/2005 03:53:39 PM
<--

Have you been bullied, banned and shouted down because the intellectual lightweights and anti-religious bigots who "STILL own the ban button, Buddy" on their "moderated" insular and ghettoized threads can't handle being challenged on a level playing field in the area of ideas?

I have; and so I offer this thread as a place where the Free Market of Ideas will determine winners and losers, not some jerk with his or her finger on the ban button.

This is a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them.

THERE IS NO BAN BUTTON HERE

Your ideas will have to sink or swim on their own merits. So welcome to the Market.

PS. The title of this thread is taken from a quote by, and is started in honor of, Lazarus Long; A prince among men.

7)
11/08/2005 04:42:08 PM
<--

Have you been bullied, banned and shouted down because the intellectual lightweights and anti-religious bigots who "STILL own the ban button, Buddy" on their "moderated" insular and ghettoized threads can't handle being challenged on a level playing field in the area of ideas?

I have; and so I offer this thread as a place where the Free Market of Ideas will determine winners and losers, not some jerk with his or her finger on the ban button.

This is a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them.

THERE IS NO BAN BUTTON HERE

Your ideas will have to sink or swim on their own merits. So welcome to the Market.

PS. The title of this thread is a quote from, and is started in honor of, Lazarus Long; A prince among men.

8)
11/03/2005 01:51:18 PM
<--

The title of this thread is a quote from, and is started in honor of, Lazarus Long; A prince among men. You will notice that it is unmoderated! That's because I believe the free market of ideas determines winners and losers.

I hope this will be a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and even Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them. Insults are to be discouraged, but don't dish them out if you are not prepared to take them in return. If you can't out think your opponent, simply hurling insults just makes YOU look shallow and stupid. So lets try and see if we can discuss issues and leave personal attacks aside.

All opinions are welcome but be ready to substantiate them with facts or reasoned arguments.

9)
09/19/2005 11:55:35 PM
<--

The title of this thread is a quote from, and is started in honor of, Lazarus Long; A prince among men. You will notice that it is unmoderated! That's because I believe the free market of ideas determines winners and losers.

I hope this will be a place where controversial subjects like Religion, Ethics, Philosophy and even Politics can be discussed without resorting to shouting down your opponents or threatening to ban them. Insults are to be discouraged, but don't dish them out if you are not prepared to take them in return. If you can't out think your opponent, simply hurling insults just makes YOU look shallow and stupid. So lets try and see if we can discuss issues and leave personal attacks aside.

All opinions are welcome but be ready to substantiate them with facts or reasoned arguments.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10