Rule 5 is officially up
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 10:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-10-2013 10:54 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  That type of vagueness is EXACTLY why the term "free speech" should be removed entirely from the forum rules.

It's only used once, though. And, it's an allusion. You still think so?

I was referring to Doms smart ass comment. Sorry. Shoulda quoted.

But yes, I still think it would be better to remove the term entirely. Although many here are reading INTO what I say, instead of reading JUST what I say, I think my point is clear. The fact that free speech is up for debate at all should be an indicator that it DOESN'T belong in the rules.

(cljr, you are far too concerned with what I define as free speech, and completely missing the point that the fact that we disagree on any aspect of free speech is precisely why it should be eliminated from the wording in the rules)

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
07-10-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Hughsie,

"In the event that it felt by the forum... "

"In the event that it is felt by the forum..."

Thank You. See, this is why you should be a Vet. The entire clubhouse has been scrutinizing that paragraph for days and none of us noticed that. Sad

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:03 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I was referring to Doms smart ass comment. Sorry. Shoulda quoted.

But yes, I still think it would be better to remove the term entirely. Although many here are reading INTO what I say, instead of reading JUST what I say, I think my point is clear. The fact that free speech is up for debate at all should be an indicator that it DOESN'T belong in the rules.

(cljr, you are far too concerned with what I define as free speech, and completely missing the point that the fact that we disagree on any aspect of free speech is precisely why it should be eliminated from the wording in the rules)

What use of it? I'm still totally lost. Huh

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
Look, the rules are intended to be as clear as possible. When there are terms used that muddy that clarity, all hell breaks loose. KC illustrates my point well. Yes, free speech is alluded to in the rules. Allusions do not belong in the rules. How is this not making sense?

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
07-10-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:03 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(07-10-2013 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Hughsie,

"In the event that it felt by the forum... "

"In the event that it is felt by the forum..."

Thank You. See, this is why you should be a Vet. The entire clubhouse has been scrutinizing that paragraph for days and none of us noticed that. Sad

What can I say?

Other than....

Dumb-fucks!

[/exercising my right to free-speech speak freely]

And I'm not old enough to be a vet.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
07-10-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:06 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Look, the rules are intended to be as clear as possible. When there are terms used that muddy that clarity, all hell breaks loose. KC illustrates my point well. Yes, free speech is alluded to in the rules. Allusions do not belong in the rules. How is this not making sense?

This is the only use of the term "free-speech" I think: As much as we would like to accommodate free-speech for all this is simply not possible 100% of the time.

It specifically says that people don't have it.

The other part that said it was altered (and had the word removed) back around page one of this thread.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:08 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(07-10-2013 11:06 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Look, the rules are intended to be as clear as possible. When there are terms used that muddy that clarity, all hell breaks loose. KC illustrates my point well. Yes, free speech is alluded to in the rules. Allusions do not belong in the rules. How is this not making sense?

This is the only use of the term "free-speech" I think: As much as we would like to accommodate free-speech for all this is simply not possible 100% of the time.

It specifically says that people don't have it.

The other part that said it was altered (and had the word removed) back around page one of this thread.

Oh FFS! That is EXACTLY the sentence to which I refer!! It does nothing but create confusion. Are you also going to add a sentence that says, "we can't give everyone cookies, but we'd sure like to!"?

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
07-10-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
we should change the name of the forum to The Over-Thinking Atheist Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like nach_in's post
07-10-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
I agree with Hughsie here. We are saying that speaking on the board is pretty open but not without limits...as are listed, like threats.

See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Rule 5 is officially up
(07-10-2013 11:03 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  But yes, I still think it would be better to remove the term entirely. Although many here are reading INTO what I say, instead of reading JUST what I say, I think my point is clear. The fact that free speech is up for debate at all should be an indicator that it DOESN'T belong in the rules.

Yeah, but literally anything ever is up for debate.

(07-10-2013 11:03 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  cljr

Angry

(07-10-2013 11:03 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  you are far too concerned with what I define as free speech, and completely missing the point that the fact that we disagree on any aspect of free speech is precisely why it should be eliminated from the wording in the rules)

No, I'm saying that as a statement of principle, I'm personally fine with it.

What I don't get is why it's a problem? I just don't see what there is to be disagreement on. I wouldn't have thought anyone would interpret it as you keep suggesting (ie, no rules at all). But, this is the internet...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: