Fund my road trip! (fuck up programs)

[TheWho]

but nobody does ignore him!  You don't, psy doesn't, survivors dont. Psy should have left it alone. So this is a relevant discussion on 1 thread. The who is on every thread. I don't think that the decision should have been up to psy. Psy's comments also do make him look sympathetic to the who. i dont think there was a dleiberate attempt to piss people off on psy's part but he made an error in lobbying for the who to be reinstated and it was a bad decision based more on ideology than common sense.

If you look back over the posts you may notice that Psy is getting a raw deal, but then I think he is used to that because he does what he thinks is right, which is difficult to manage and can isolate you from others (many times the majority).  As I told psy in an earlier post, I was not looking for any favors, if I broke any rules then I deserve to be banned like anyone else.  All I ask is what the rules are and maybe a warning or 2 before the plug is pulled.
I was surprised I had that many anon posts, I do post anon (as does everyone), but I never knew there was an upper limit.  At the time I was banned I was being trolled by someone and was responding toe-to-toe….post-to-post (within thewho thread) with this person and I feel that was the reason I was banned, but the other person should have been banned also wouldn’t you agree?  Psy was instrumental in lifting my ban status even though he despises what he believes I stand for, which is the Teen industry (even though I do not profit directly from the industry), which shows he believes the same rules should apply equally to everyone.  So don’t hang him too high for that……. he is standing up for freedom of speech, which isn’t all that bad of a thing.

[Anonymous]

"TheWho is a perpetrator"

Never a truer thing said.

[Anonymous]

THE WHO sounds a lot like Isabelle Zehnder, Sue Scheff when they are screaming freedom of speech when it meets their needs, wants, yet tries to shut down anyone who disagrees with them with lies and bullshit.

[TheWho]

THE WHO sounds a lot like Isabelle Zehnder, Sue Scheff when they are screaming freedom of speech when it meets their needs, wants, yet tries to shut down anyone who disagrees with them with lies and bullshit.

Funny you should bring that up.  Its not thewho trying to shut people up or ban anyone from speaking because their beliefs are not popular.

[Anonymous]

TheWho takes it up the ass.

[Froderik]

All the who does is cause infighting and division. Letting him back on was a bad idea. Several posters with useful information have already decided to leave because of his constant program marketing. People don't ignore him they let him derail every fucking thread. I understand the need to preserve somebodies right to speak but when they silence everyone else with their constant bullshit, it defeats the whole purpose.

Now 2 more people are at each others throats. This fucker is making the board unreadable and pointless. What is the point of a right to speak if it fucks up a board entirely? Just face facts, when he posts a thread becomes a fucking waste of time. it seems nobody ignores him. He does flood the board and with program advertising. if the board of administrators feel so strongly about free speech then take some kind of vote or poll. At the very least stop bantering with this fuck with "hilarious" offers of tshirts and other fucking crap that makes him feel witty and important. i am so sick of what that fucker is doing to the board as a whole!

I agree, for the most part, with this post. However, I differ on the idea that the Who is being disruptive. I believe some people are making him a disruptive force by paying far to much attention to him.

Exactly...people should learn to adapt (for lack of better word) somehow. No one forces anyone to speak to or about TheWho...

And I wonder if that 'who-busting' sticky thread idea I came up with would be helpful.....

[psy]

but nobody does ignore him!  You don't, psy doesn't, survivors dont. Psy should have left it alone. So this is a relevant discussion on 1 thread. The who is on every thread. I don't think that the decision should have been up to psy. Psy's comments also do make him look sympathetic to the who. i dont think there was a dleiberate attempt to piss people off on psy's part but he made an error in lobbying for the who to be reinstated and it was a bad decision based more on ideology than common sense.

It shows character to stand up for what is right or what you believe in even though it is unpopular and you know people will ridicule you for it or disapprove.

Thank you.

[psy]

All the who does is cause infighting and division. Letting him back on was a bad idea. Several posters with useful information have already decided to leave because of his constant program marketing. People don't ignore him they let him derail every fucking thread. I understand the need to preserve somebodies right to speak but when they silence everyone else with their constant bullshit, it defeats the whole purpose.

Now 2 more people are at each others throats. This fucker is making the board unreadable and pointless. What is the point of a right to speak if it fucks up a board entirely? Just face facts, when he posts a thread becomes a fucking waste of time. it seems nobody ignores him. He does flood the board and with program advertising. if the board of administrators feel so strongly about free speech then take some kind of vote or poll.

First off, the decision was made, based on the opinion of me, Kelly, and Ginger BEFORE he was un-banned.  Even if you include Deborah as an administrator, she is still out-voted three to one.

If you were to poll the whole forum, users and all, it would not matter to me.  There is such a thing as they tyranny of the majority, and when you repress speech, you get resistance in return.  Respond instead.

All admins of Fornits should know that there are far worse offenses on Fornits by Deborah's definition of flodding.  The only difference is the content of his trolling.  Making a decision to ban would be interfering with his right to speak, not to mention controlling communication (Ever read Lifton?)

Fornits is not a fucking program...  repeat it after me:  Control over communication is the first step to a totalistic system.  It's wrong.  It's what they do, not us.  It's what Lon Woodbury did on ST, and what Sue Scheff did on trekkers.  The power over communcation, when exercised, has the likely potential to cause a slippery slope effect, polarizing the dialogue and repressing unpopular (especially minority) opinions.  Each "ban" sets a precedent that can gets stretched each time.

Ultimately, we are all human in that we have emotions, which are designed to overwhelm.  This is precisely why it is unwise to make decisions in an emotional state, the same reason the plaintiff isn't on the jury, and the same reason I felt our hasty reaction to 9/11 was not just wrong, but also destined for disaster (and i turned out to be right).

It's important to guard free speech anywhere by never taking that first step towards infringement over personal liberty.  In my opinion, this includes all forms of defamation.  People have the personal responsibility to consider for themselves whether something they read or hear is true or not.  It is my opinion that the dissolution of those crimes would result in a cynical (but ultimately wiser) populace who would be less likely to swallow what they hear as truth, without first processing the information to see if it makes sense, fact checking if necessary.

[Deborah]

All admins of Fornits should know that there are far worse offenses on Fornits by Deborah's definition of flodding.

For the record, state my definition of flooding psy?

So are the other two "tyrants of majority" in agreement with you scapegoating me for Who's banning?
If you're remotely interested in the "facts" of how Who came to be banned, you'll go read my PMs for June 1st as I suggested before.

[ajax13]

If you ban somebody for flooding the forums, then ban me.  I don't care what the intent of setting up the forums was, I use it, along with a handful of others in our little forum, as the only avenue we have open to dissiminate information and to counter program info.  Let the fuckers say what they want, and if nobody has the will to repudiate it or the dignity to ignore it, then why not shut the whole fucking thing down?  Free speech is no longer a right in Western Civilization, it's a prize that every ape who posts here is lucky to have a sniff at.

[Nihilanthic]

Is a screaming simian also freedom of speech?

[Deborah]

but nobody does ignore him!  You don't, psy doesn't, survivors dont. Psy should have left it alone. So this is a relevant discussion on 1 thread. The who is on every thread. I don't think that the decision should have been up to psy. Psy's comments also do make him look sympathetic to the who. i dont think there was a dleiberate attempt to piss people off on psy's part but he made an error in lobbying for the who to be reinstated and it was a bad decision based more on ideology than common sense.

It shows character to stand up for what is right or what you believe in even though it is unpopular and you know people will ridicule you for it or disapprove.

Thank you.

Yeh, those "value added" kudos from Who make one feel all warm and fuzzy.

It shows jackass stubborness when someone holds their ground to save face and won't access the facts that are available to them.

The 'facts' of how Who came to be banned are in mine and Ginger's PMs beginning 1 June.

I've posted several questions in this thread I would like to have answers to. If your intention is to ignore me psy, have the balls to come out and say it.

[ajax13]

Is a screaming simian also freedom of speech?

As I have drawn much inspiration from bonobos getting their freak on, I would have to say yes.

[Anonymous]

Is a screaming simian also freedom of speech?

As I have drawn much inspiration from bonobos getting their freak on, I would have to say yes.

Look what that monkey done did!

[psy]

All admins of Fornits should know that there are far worse offenses on Fornits by Deborah's definition of flodding.

For the record, state my definition of flooding psy?

So are the other two "tyrants of majority" in agreement with you scapegoating me for Who's banning?

Not unexpected, actually, for you to say that.  The difference here, and problem with your logic, is that you are trying to deny another person their rights.  You do not have a right to do that.  Have you ever actually watched that "philosophy of liberty" ginger used to have in their sig (google it).  Look.  This is her site, I obey my rules, and her personal, political beliefs happen to pretty much be fairly close together.  We've talked a lot about political shit, and also about forum policy (which is very much in line).  She has a running theory that makes a lot of sense: if you deny industry members their precious control over communication you attack the cult in a very direct manner...  people snap out.. etc.

She also explained that if you started outing guest posters, even for good reasons, other staff who might want to turn over information might become afraid to post here.  It would set a bad precedent.  We also talked about free speech, and as far as I understand pretty much seem to agree with me that what this issue really needs is unrestricted, uncensored, free speech, and a more cynical public...  Teach people the tricks of the con, and to buyer beware.

Go ahead and continue to research who TheWho is and what he is after by all means, but only use legitimately (as in not obtained using special powers) obtained information.  Save one of his posts with descriptive information about his past, cross reference with previous posts on the subject, find the common links and build a background profile.  Cross that with his publicly stated location and you have a fairly good guess at a name.  Enough information and you could drop "dox" on him.

If you're remotely interested in the "facts" of how Who came to be banned, you'll go read my PMs for June 1st as I suggested before.

I had several reasons for not doing that.  First off, I didn't, and still don't consider it an issue.  I was investigating a forum ban, and as far as i'm concerned, I don't want to get involved in some personal dispute between you and TheWho.  I don't particularly like the guy, considering he's an industry member, but up to this point have been able to control myself.  You, on the other hand, were calling him a terrorist (don't make me pull out that email ! ).  Frankly, if you did do something you shouldn't have, i wanted to look the other way, and really didn't want to know.

You know i've been in program.  You should, thereby know that I find it very difficult to trust most people, especially program parents in general.  Also consider i've been fucked with by all kinds of people, from my parents, to benchmark, to a vicious ex girlfriend, to another vicious cruel ex girlfriend (bad luck... don't ask)   It's just a natural thing i'll have to overcome in time.  Don't take it personally that I don't trust every single word you say, or anybody for that matter.

I know that everybody lies sometimes, especially those who claim they don't.  I know by experience.  Most people do it for good reasons, some for bad, but I know your heart was good and perhaps you did add a bunny hat or whatever he accused you of.  I've never really looked into it, and frankly, I didn't want to.  I was also busy with Fornits admin stuff and dodging SS at the time...

Look at yourself... You just outed a guest poster who you didn't like becuase he pissed you off, and because you're pissed off at me for calming the situation down to the point where TheWho was not going to persue the matter, furthermore, he did say he would avoid you for a while, at least.

Yes.  There is a 99.9% probability that The Who is industry, but on this site, as I understand Ginger's "rules" around here, that entitles them to the same posting rights.