Originally posted by SuzianneI think this place could scarcely be further from being a "free speech wasteland" because people can seemingly say pretty much what they want and the interventions of the moderators are few and far between. As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way. Thumbs up and down are meaningless to me. I really don't care WHO is - and isn't - contributing in such a meaningless way.
Then why are you turning this site into a free speech wasteland by insisting that your detractors all be "called out" [b]by name?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFOkay, so you won't answer the question.
I think your diatribes about "freedom of speech" are paranoid and delusional. I think your post on the Site Ideas forum about it is arrant nonsense, for the reasons I have explained numerous times.
As long as we're all straight on that.
Originally posted by FMFWell, duh. It's not a wasteland NOW. Not until you and your mouthpiece get your way.
I think this place could scarcely be further from being a "free speech wasteland" because people can seemingly say pretty much what they want and the interventions of the moderators are few and far between. As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way. As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way.
"As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way."
And I've said it before. On this point, you are clearly a liar, or you wouldn't have had your boy forward your agenda about it.
You want all the people who disagree with you called out publicly.
Freedom blows, doesn't it? At least when your dissenters have it, anyways.
"As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way."
Apparently you do, as I said, or you wouldn't be trying to make RHP call all of them out for you. You have said as much in other threads, where you go on and on about taking steps to make the down-thumbers (apparently the only kind of thumbers you do care about) known to all, in effect, arranging for the website to call out all those who, right now, have to freedom to disagree with you without painting a target on their back for further harassment by you.
Sorry, man, facts are facts, and you can try to twist and dodge them all day, but it's pretty obvious what's going on.
FMF: "As for the thumbs up or thumbs down being anonymous or not anonymous, I don't care either way."
Originally posted by Suzianne
Apparently you do, as I said, or you wouldn't be trying to make RHP call all of them out for you. You have said as much in other threads, where you go on and on about taking steps to make the down-thumbers (apparently the only kind of thumbers you do care about) known to all, in effect, arranging for the website to call out all those who, right now, have to freedom to disagree with you without painting a target on their back for further harassment by you.
Huh? I went "on and on" about it? Where was this? If you look, when commenting on the issue of who the phantom thumbs downer is, I have - on a few occasions - made the simple observation that one only has to see who goes absolutely spare [like you are now] whenever the issue of making the identity of those using thumbs known is raised ~ and that person is probably the person doing it.
As for a poster who has, in the past, gone on and on about removing the anonymity of the thumbs downers (in particular), that'd be Grampy Bobby. It is one of his hobby horses. I can't remember you ever tackling him for his stance. Like I said,when it comes to the question of whether the thumbs up or thumbs down should be kept anonymous or not anonymous, I personally don't really care either way.
Originally posted by FMFI tackle this spectre of removing this critical anonymity every single time it raises its ugly head. I do this for those who may be shocked into not posting here for fear of the vicious attacks you and your sidekick habitually unleash on those who disagree with either of you. I myself have become numb to it, because not a day passes that I do not receive some attack for posting my own disagreement of you. Even now, you try to tarnish my disagreement by painting me with unflattering nonsense, for which you have no proof. Others may not have the flame-retardant undies which enable me to endure your slander day after day. You even pursue the idea that a "phantom thumb-downer" is somehow a crime. The crime, in this instance and according only to you, is ANYone's disagreement with you, and it chafes you to no end to be faced with someone (and their down vote) that you cannot confront with endless harassment. This is the exact reason that an anonymous thumb system is necessary. You already constantly confront people and attempt to publicly denigrate them for merely disagreeing with you or your "tribe". You've already received way more than your share of thumbs down for this already, but still you persist in this questionable behavior. Your motivation here is to limit those thumbing you down for your attacks on others by "arranging" for RHP to call out all of your detractors publicly, so that you can excoriate a few at first and show the others that they will be called out also unless they stop the down-thumbs. And this is you denying them their right to Freedom of Speech in showing their disagreement without fear of reprisal. Disagreement with you is not a crime, and yet you wish to make it so.
[quote]Originally posted by Suzianne
[i]Apparently you do, as I said, or you wouldn't be trying to make RHP call all of them out for you. You have said as much in other threads, where you go on and on about taking steps to make the down-thumbers (apparently the only kind of thumbers you do care about) known to all, in effect, arranging for the website t ...[text shortened]... humbs down should be kept anonymous or not anonymous, I personally don't really care either way.
Next, I've called GB out for his statements many times, but you're so absorbed by my disagreements with you (which are legion) that you can only conveniently remember those. I've had my share of public disagreements with him, such as arguing with him when he's claimed that the General Forum is dying, and yes, the one time he raised the idea of removing thumb anonymity. He eventually came around to my way of thinking on the issue. You knew he would agree with me on this, and so this latest attack on your detractors comes while he's conveniently not here.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121482
08 Oct 16
Originally posted by Suzianne"Vicious attacks"
I tackle this spectre of removing this critical anonymity every single time it raises its ugly head. I do this for those who may be shocked into not posting here for fear of the vicious attacks you and your sidekick habitually unleash on those who disagree with either of you. I myself have become numb to it, because not a day passes that I do not receive ...[text shortened]... idea of removing thumb anonymity. He eventually came around to my way of thinking on the issue.
Hilarious.
Originally posted by divegeesterYes, vicious.
"Vicious attacks"
Hilarious.
You two almost succeeded in making GB a pariah on these forums. Go look at his thread, "Memo", for one of the most obvious examples of you two tag-teaming him with your, yes, vicious attacks.
Your memory must be short indeed to forget that.