20 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry when you said "the first two sentences are outright lies..." I thought you meant the point 1 and point 2 he made.
What are the requirements to be a member here? Please stop nitpicking. BTW, where did I say it was a "public forum"?
I misinterpreted and apologize for inferring incorrectly.
As for me nitpicking...well not really...I just know that having to give an email address and all to be a member of a site is alot different than walking into a parking lot and stating your believes out lod for people to hear them.
Dave
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by nmdavidbSorry, I overreacted. No, I was talking about his sentences before the points.
Sorry when you said "the first two sentences are outright lies..." I thought you meant the point 1 and point 2 he made.
I misinterpreted and apologize for inferring incorrectly.
As for me nitpicking...well not really...I just know that having to give an email address and all to be a member of a site is alot different than walking into a parking lot and stating your believes out lod for people to hear them.
Dave
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is a loaded question.
Did it, unlike kirksey's, violate the ToS?
I would say that a colorable argument could be made that both posts (Kirksey's and mine) violated this rule:
Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
Bold emphasis is mine
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by nmdavidbThese are public forums. You do not need to be a member to read these threads, and they show up in a Google and Yahoo search. Also, by definition public refers to community, and RHP users are a community onto themselves.
Actually you are wrong...this is not a "public forum" because you have to be a member to post here.
Dave
Private forums are not viewed by the general public of Earth or RHP.
P-
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightI didn't read yours, but kirksey's does not fit under any of those categories (see the wiki article cited).
That is a loaded question.
I would say that a colorable argument could be made that both posts (Kirksey's and mine) violated this rule:
Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, [b]abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
Bold emphasis is mine[/b]
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI see no citation to a wiki article and would not be all that impressed with one if it existed.
I didn't read yours, but kirksey's does not fit under any of those categories (see the wiki article cited).
Regarding your statement that "Kirksey's does not fit under any of those" I honestly fail to see how anyone could argue that a racial slur is not racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable
Originally posted by Red Nighthttp://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=81144&page=4#post_1545471
I see no citation to a wiki article and would not be all that impressed with one if it existed.
How can you know that you wouldn't be impressed with it if you haven't seen it? I found it quite interesting, as I hadn't heard the term before and didn't know anything about its history.
20 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightDefine "slur" and show how the high yaller one's comment was such.
Regarding your statement that "Kirksey's does not fit under any of those" I honestly fail to see how anyone could argue that a racial slur is not [b]racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable[/b]
By the way what does impress you, in this or any other context?
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightSorry, I thought you might try to follow the conversation by reading other people's posts:
I see no citation to a wiki article and would not be all that impressed with one if it existed.
Regarding your statement that "Kirksey's does not fit under any of those" I honestly fail to see how anyone could argue that a racial slur is not [b]racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable[/b]
no1: He used a term that some consider having negative racial connotations though he didn't use it in that way. For an article on the term in wiki, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
"Specific reasons why the term developed negative racial aspects are difficult to identify, but are likely rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the term".
I dispute the term is a racial slur at all in the context kirksey used it.