This may be true, but the 1st Amendment has always been easily triggered...especially when it comes to the most protected forms of speech, such as political and religious speech. Thankfully for Bill and Chris, I can't remember reading any Supreme Court opinions that recgonized jacket babble as being protected speech.ButteMT61 said:Until the legal system catches up with technology and the government gets it's mitts on the 'net, it's pretty much not in the picture. For the issue at hand, it's an admin decision, not a gov't one. But no doubt, the day is coming. And I do not look forward to that. Some countries have already done this with social-networking getting in the way of dictators and their regimes. Oh to be a lawyer in the technology/information fields. It is an untapped never-ending mess that will provide lawyers and politicians many years of paychecks...
But make no mistake - our government will try and probably succeed in taxing and controlling the web in the near future.
Ian C said:... so how can I use or get that yawning smiley? It's just the job.
JDAM said:ButteMT61 said:Just try it out and see for yourself.
Ah, now I see what you mean. As for trying it out, I have, several times, and still do. It's rather easy. There are ways and means of moderating online forums. Some like to micro-manage, others let it all go. The worst are unclear in their own minds and inconsistent.
VLJ mods have determined that 'politics' is forbidden. In the context of VLJ, it seems to me that 'politics' means any opinion or content that messes with a simple, provincial mindset. Smutty posts about tits and arse are OK, as are jingoistic / political comments that do not offend the Shire. If it's appropriate for a tired, no-nonsense club-house, it's generally OK here on VLJ.
VLJ is OK for technical info only. Lively conversation, debate, argument, 'politics!'? No. If that's what you're after, then there are much better online forums.
Very well said.grommet said:I very much enjoy participating in this forum, which is the only one I am currently active in. Up until now I have avoided controversy partly because I am not by nature contentious and partly because I think the tone of the forum is meant to be light hearted and constructive. To paraphrase someone, we are, afterall, basically talking jackets! After reading the thread and reading a number of Jeff Thurston's book reviews, courtesy of David, and because Bill invited us to vent, I feel justified in throwing in my 2 deutschmarks to wit:
I think there is a special problem in discussing almost anything relating to WW II given the strong emotions the memory of the Nazis evoke in many people. It is a very thin line between admiring the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe and being a Nazi apologist which, to be perfectly honest, I think Mr. Thurston is.
I don't believe the political content of Mr. Thurston's posts was the principle reason for Bill's action, but I think it is a mistake to equate the politics of Nazi Germany with those of the United States or Great Britain, either during or after the war. Mr. Thurston's contention that the U.S. is on a moral level close to Nazi Germany by virtue of waging "wars of aggression" is disingenous. Hitler's war was launched on the flimsiest of pretexts that even a Hitler Youth member would find incredible. I, personally, do not believe the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, but I do not think the motivation behind this was to control the country, exact booty or exterminate its ciitizens. There is a difference between preemptive war, war initiated for muddled reasons, and war of aggression.
I am a bit sorry to say these things about someone who cannot respond, but I think they needed to be said. I, for one, will be happy to continue reading the more collegial posts even if they are sometimes inane or "smutty". I also think there is enough expertise left within the forum to make time spent on the site worthwhile.
deeb7 said:Ian C said:... so how can I use or get that yawning smiley? It's just the job.
Here's the mother-load ...
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/
Atticus said:Very well said.grommet said:I very much enjoy participating in this forum, which is the only one I am currently active in. Up until now I have avoided controversy partly because I am not by nature contentious and partly because I think the tone of the forum is meant to be light hearted and constructive. To paraphrase someone, we are, afterall, basically talking jackets! After reading the thread and reading a number of Jeff Thurston's book reviews, courtesy of David, and because Bill invited us to vent, I feel justified in throwing in my 2 deutschmarks to wit:
I think there is a special problem in discussing almost anything relating to WW II given the strong emotions the memory of the Nazis evoke in many people. It is a very thin line between admiring the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe and being a Nazi apologist which, to be perfectly honest, I think Mr. Thurston is.
I don't believe the political content of Mr. Thurston's posts was the principle reason for Bill's action, but I think it is a mistake to equate the politics of Nazi Germany with those of the United States or Great Britain, either during or after the war. Mr. Thurston's contention that the U.S. is on a moral level close to Nazi Germany by virtue of waging "wars of aggression" is disingenous. Hitler's war was launched on the flimsiest of pretexts that even a Hitler Youth member would find incredible. I, personally, do not believe the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, but I do not think the motivation behind this was to control the country, exact booty or exterminate its ciitizens. There is a difference between preemptive war, war initiated for muddled reasons, and war of aggression.
I am a bit sorry to say these things about someone who cannot respond, but I think they needed to be said. I, for one, will be happy to continue reading the more collegial posts even if they are sometimes inane or "smutty". I also think there is enough expertise left within the forum to make time spent on the site worthwhile.
AF
ButteMT61 said:Atticus said:Very well said.grommet said:I very much enjoy participating in this forum, which is the only one I am currently active in. Up until now I have avoided controversy partly because I am not by nature contentious and partly because I think the tone of the forum is meant to be light hearted and constructive. To paraphrase someone, we are, afterall, basically talking jackets! After reading the thread and reading a number of Jeff Thurston's book reviews, courtesy of David, and because Bill invited us to vent, I feel justified in throwing in my 2 deutschmarks to wit:
I think there is a special problem in discussing almost anything relating to WW II given the strong emotions the memory of the Nazis evoke in many people. It is a very thin line between admiring the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe and being a Nazi apologist which, to be perfectly honest, I think Mr. Thurston is.
I don't believe the political content of Mr. Thurston's posts was the principle reason for Bill's action, but I think it is a mistake to equate the politics of Nazi Germany with those of the United States or Great Britain, either during or after the war. Mr. Thurston's contention that the U.S. is on a moral level close to Nazi Germany by virtue of waging "wars of aggression" is disingenous. Hitler's war was launched on the flimsiest of pretexts that even a Hitler Youth member would find incredible. I, personally, do not believe the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, but I do not think the motivation behind this was to control the country, exact booty or exterminate its ciitizens. There is a difference between preemptive war, war initiated for muddled reasons, and war of aggression.
I am a bit sorry to say these things about someone who cannot respond, but I think they needed to be said. I, for one, will be happy to continue reading the more collegial posts even if they are sometimes inane or "smutty". I also think there is enough expertise left within the forum to make time spent on the site worthwhile.
AF
X2!
grommet said:Mr. Thurston's contention that the U.S. is on a moral level close to Nazi Germany by virtue of waging "wars of aggression" is disingenous. Hitler's war was launched on the flimsiest of pretexts that even a Hitler Youth member would find incredible. I, personally, do not believe the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, but I do not think the motivation behind this was to control the country, exact booty or exterminate its ciitizens. There is a difference between preemptive war, war initiated for muddled reasons, and war of aggression.
deeb7 said:Ian C said:... so how can I use or get that yawning smiley? It's just the job.
Here's the mother-load ...
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/
Rutger said:
crap, not working, apparently I'm no good at HTML. But I will succeed. In the end. I would like an unlimited editing mode, until I've figured it out.
deeb7 said:Ian C said:... so how can I use or get that yawning smiley? It's just the job.
Here's the mother-load ...
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/
Rutger said:Would have liked to read the reasoning behind rottenmans opinions. I don't believe him a nazi apologizer or admirer.