20 Feb 05
OK, let me just try to make a trial run on this thread and see what happens. I will post several names of people who have been suspended or banned and I will ask people to shout out to Cesear (Russ) who they would like returned or just like the most. Please list on this thread and we will see what happens.
Ivanhoe
Blobby
Mateulose
Dodger11
Cribs
Tucolives
I'm sure there are others, but let's just try this short list.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599520
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by kirksey957May all these past criminals roast in everlasting hell. On second thought, what the heck, its just cyberspace. Lets bring em all back.
OK, let me just try to make a trial run on this thread and see what happens. I will post several names of people who have been suspended or banned and I will ask people to shout out to Cesear (Russ) who they would like returned or just like the most. Please list on this thread and we will see what happens.
Ivanhoe
Blobby
Mateulose
Dodger11
Cribs
Tucolives
I'm sure there are others, but let's just try this short list.
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957I am reminded of the scenes in those Roman movies where the Emperor, sitting in his own seat at the gladiator arena, extends his arm, thumb tucked away in hand. Will he rotate his arm to a thumbs-up, or will the crowd gasp as he rotates the other way, commanding the death of the conquered?
... I will ask people to shout out to Cesear (Russ) ...
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Paul DiracActually if the fist was kept closed that meant life if the thumb was extended it meant death. The thumbs up vs. down was used in the movie.
I am reminded of the scenes in those Roman movies where the Emperor, sitting in his own seat at the gladiator arena, extends his arm, thumb tucked away in hand. Will he rotate his arm to a thumbs-up, or will the crowd gasp as he rotates the other way, commanding the death of the conquered?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by kirksey957Wewease Bwian!
OK, let me just try to make a trial run on this thread and see what happens. I will post several names of people who have been suspended or banned and I will ask people to shout out to Cesear (Russ) who they would like returned or just like the most. Please list on this thread and we will see what happens.
Ivanhoe
Blobby
Mateulose
Dodger11
Cribs
Tucolives
I'm sure there are others, but let's just try this short list.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Exiledjust out of curiousity how do you know how old blobby is?
Didn't you say you were leaving? Bobbly, take my advice, if you want to leave the forums, just leave, don't get baited into such mess, and at your young age you are especially vulnerable to such baits. RHP comes down heavily on retaliators and does nothing against the culprits/agressors in most cases, ie: those who start agressive posts, the defender who re ...[text shortened]... corrupt penalty policy that exists in the NHL, and we all know what happened to the NHL so far.
fred
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Windsor MikeIt's ok to disagree with me.
I am usually in agreement with most things you write in the forums and have rec'd many of them but on this one you are dead wrong in my opinion.
Dodger has admitted in these forums that he participates in an hate forum on another s ...[text shortened]... owned site and I applaud Russ for his decision.
Regards Mike
I am not saying that hateful speech should be permitted or tolerated
here. I am saying that he is entitled to his opinions and, if he expressed
them courteously (e.g., without the n-word or other related epithets),
then he should be allowed to speak them. Whether he expressed his
hatefulness elsewhere is not the business or concern of this site.
For example, if he wrote:
'I think slavery should be legal,' and argued it, I don't think this should
be banned.
Or, if he wrote:
'Black people are the source of trouble in America,' and argued it, I don't
think that this should be banned either.
(Please note that I don't agree with the above and would argue against
both statements. They are provided as examples of the sort of thing I
can imagine Dodger saying.)
If you are going to ban hate, then you would have to also ban all of the
Bible-thumping about 'who is going to be saved' and, especially, 'homosexuals
are sinners' stuff. Are you prepared to do that? Where do we draw the
line?
I agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he shouldn't have to
tone down his ideas, not matter how offensive they fundamentally are.
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioI tkink your mistake is in saying that Dodger has ideas.Dodger and people like him are incapable of ideas.If they were they would not be who they are.Thought is infectious and enlightning.We may stumble but it makes us better human beings if we work at it.
It's ok to disagree with me.
I am not saying that hateful speech should be permitted or tolerated
here. I am saying that he is entitled to his opinions and, if he expressed
them courteously (e.g., without the n-word or other related epithets),
then he should be allowed to speak them. Whether he expressed his
hatefulness elsewhere is not the busine ...[text shortened]... ldn't have to
tone down his ideas, not matter how offensive they fundamentally are.
Nemesio
Please don't lump Dodger in with rational human beings,capable of rational thought
I have already stated that if someone has an argument that he can back up with data,no matter how much I disagree with his position,I will agree to disagree using other data,logic or whatever is at my disposal.And I mean data not opinion,if you wish to make ridiculus claims.
Spend a little time at the hate site that he is a proud member of and then tell me it is of no concern of ours or RHP.
Where do you draw the line?I believe that Dodger would have been in the clear had Darvlay not angered him so much that he revealed who he really was,and led everyone to his hate site.And I submit to you that to ignore that knowledge is to condone it.And I'm sorry but free speech be damned if it means I must ignore this so that worms like Dodger can spread there hate.
Thanks for your time .
Regards,Mike
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Windsor MikeI don't think Dodger can think for himself. I think at the fundament
I tkink your mistake is in saying that Dodger has ideas.Dodger and people like him are incapable of ideas.If they were they would not be who they are.Thought is infectious and enlightning.We may stumble but it makes us better human beings if we work at it.
Please don't lump Dodger in with rational human beings,capable of rational thought
I have alr ...[text shortened]... re this so that worms like Dodger can spread there hate.
Thanks for your time .
Regards,Mike
of prejudice is ignorance. However, there are a lot of poorly thought
out posts on this site, a lot of regurgitation of non-ideas, liberal and
conservative alike. We cannot discriminate against non-thinkers, even
if these non-thinkers have bad ideas.
I believe that if he wants to post his disturbed ideas with decorum,
the he should be allowed. There are a lot of very disturbing ideas
floating around these forums that no one even thinks of alerting,
much less calling for their dismissal from the site.
I've been to hate sites -- to know thy enemy, so to speak -- I've
read the majority of his posts, both here and at FW.
I am not 'ignoring' that knowledge. In fact, by censoring him, you
are allowing 'his kind' to remain unchecked. By letting him speak and
then fighting against it with true data and sociological analysis, you
accomplish far more: you educate.
Offensive speech must be protected, because that which is offensive
is subjective. If he can post within the restrictions of this site, then
he should be permitted to post, even if his ideas are based in a non-
reality.
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioIn the realm of ideas you and I will agree to disagree,But I will respect your opinion.
I don't think Dodger can think for himself. I think at the fundament
of prejudice is ignorance. However, there are a lot of poorly thought
out posts on this site, a lot of regurgitation of non-ideas, liberal and
conservative alike. We cannot discriminate against non-thinkers, even
if these non-thinkers have bad ideas.
I believe that if he wants to ...[text shortened]... then
he should be permitted to post, even if his ideas are based in a non-
reality.
Nemesio
Regards, Mike
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Windsor MikeWell at least he's not in favoring of banning you, Nemesio; apparently your ideas are sufficiently close to his to not deserve censorship. What people post at other sites is none of RHP's business period and to use what people post elsewhere on the web as a rationale for banning someone HERE is a very disturbing premise. Maybe we should submit in advance to RHP for editorial approval anything we're going to post on the internet to make sure it meets WindsorMike's standards for non-banning.
In the realm of ideas you and I will agree to disagree,But I will respect your opinion.
Regards, Mike
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed, diging up people's private lives online and their behaviours on other sites as reason for banning is a recipe for disaster and tons of slander. What would happen, say, the numerous bible thumpers/republicans who polute this site, find a good chess player, and with a bit of nosing around, find out he's visited a gay porno site that they deem offensive and suddenly hundreds are calling for the head of this good chess player? What makes this situation any different then that? I agree with no1, nobody in good legal concious can support the reasoning of this ban, it may be true that dodger deserves a ban (and for the recod, I HATE dodger, the republican, but that's irrelevant), but the reasoning is so poor and just downright dangerous if applied fairly in all cases.
Well at least he's not in favoring of banning you, Nemesio; apparently your ideas are sufficiently close to his to not deserve censorship. What people post at other sites is none of RHP's business period and to use what people post elsewhere on the web as a rationale for banning someone HERE is a very disturbing premise. Maybe we should submit ...[text shortened]... re going to post on the internet to make sure it meets WindsorMike's standards for non-banning.
Dodger, and anyone else, should get banned for his activities on RHP alone, not because of what he does in other sites, with his e-mails, what's on his desktop, who are his friends, etc. . . If the final straw was evidence he visits Nazi sites and his acitivites in "FW" (whatever that is), all of which nothing has to do with RHP, then I'm afraid the slandering wars that poluted this site a year ago have taken a turn for the worse. Now, not only can people democraticly vote people off with massive alerting, it's now acceptable to dig up their lives online and use that as evidence to support a ban through popular voting. It seems to me, if you want to invest in your RHP subscription, staying away from the forums would be safe and wise, and oh yeah, you can pretty much cheat as much as you want, nobody will care, all that matters is the forums and not actual chess, lol.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Exiledjust out of curiousity where abouts in canada are you from ???
Agreed, diging up people's private lives online and their behaviours on other sites as reason for banning is a recipe for disaster and tons of slander. What would happen, say, the numerous bible thumpers/republicans who polute this site, find a good chess player, and with a bit of nosing around, find out he's visited a gay porno site that they deem offensiv ...[text shortened]... as much as you want, nobody will care, all that matters is the forums and not actual chess, lol.
fred