# Censorship??? MacDoc Spamming Thread Missing??????????



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Note the time folks. Not a half hour ago, I posted a defense of MacDoc's email policy when a member accused him of sending spam.

While whoever posted the original thread may have had a lapse in good judgement, whoever deleted the thread is guilty of censorship in the first degree.

I will defend to the death anyone who accuses MacDoc of spamming, but I will not defend whoever made the decision to make him look bad by deleting the thread. MacDoc is perfectly capable of defending himself, and so are people like me who choose to defend his actions.

Has the person who removed a valid thread got the guts to admit he is wrong and put it back to let us show the thread originator the errors of his ways?

Or does one person's supposed "judgement" call curtail freedom of expression?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc - the post was removed at the posters request.
The issue was resolved amicably as it should be.
It was NOT one person's judgement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, so if I make a bad judgement call and start a thread that I don't like the resulting reaction, I ask WHO to delete it??


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

I had the post removed at my request - after numerous private discussions with David I believe the method I used to correct what was ticking me off was a tad inflammitory to the parties involved and could have been resolved privately.

MacDoc has assured me that my issue has been resolved so ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Moderators. That would be their usual role.

In cases where private information completely wrong to be released in a public forum was concerned a mod might take unilateral action but I'd say it's rare.

Posts are removed at request of the poster and on occasion by the judgement of the Moderators - part of the turf.

Keep your high horse for real issues like the shrub's malfeasance


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

SINC said:


> Ah, so if I make a bad judgement call and start a thread that I don't like the resulting reaction, I ask WHO to delete it??


If you are being serious then Chealion is the guy to speak to ... but I pretty sure he doesn't delete willy-nilly either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The whole thing reeks of censorship, or worse favouritism.

It should have stood as presented with the resolution added to let members know it had been resolved.

As it stands, it is censorship, pure and simple.

Withdrawal by the author is a cop out. Take your licks like a man.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> ...judgement, whoever deleted the thread is guilty of censorship in the first degree.
> 
> ....does one person's supposed "judgement" call curtail freedom of expression?


Freedom of expression and freedom of speech do not exist in Canada. Censorship happens on a daily basis.

And this is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I can say Chealion, is that if you indeed deleted the thread, it is my first disappointment in your actions as a mod. One should be willing to face the consequences of their actions and take their licks in public, like they gave them.

A simple note that the issue had been resolved would be MUCH MORE HONEST.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

SINC said:


> The whole thing reeks of censorship, or worse favouritism.
> 
> It should have stood as presented with the resolution added to let members know it had been resolved.
> 
> ...


I can take my licks like a man and I wasn't copping out - as the poster I am allowed to retract what I say because just maybe I stepped over a line too far. But what I said was valid - at the time - and it served it's purpose. I got the result I was looking for and immediate action was taken for it's resolve. 

Now I'm not defending MacDoc's business practices as he is welcome to do what it takes to make his sale but the original thread's removal was a mutual request. I don't care what you opinion you hold of me, but remember there are two parties involved so just maybe there is another valid reason why too.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

I would have left the thread.. but if one wanted to delete their own content.. they could.. I think it is a bit over the top to remove the whole thread...

RTC


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

simon said:


> I can take my licks like a man and I wasn't copping out - as the poster I am allowed to retract what I say because just maybe I stepped over a line too far.


Really? So if I call someone a "@@#$%^^&&*" and then change my mind, I can retract it on ehMac? A mod will then remove it at my request? I am allowed to do that?

ehMax must have some personal policy I have not seen, has he?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> The whole thing reeks of censorship, or worse favouritism.
> 
> It should have stood as presented with the resolution added to let members know it had been resolved.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about, SINC? There is no censorship here.

The only censorship that needs to be condemned is governmental censorship. "Private censorship" is a non-issue.

For instance, a singer in a band writes a song. His band-mates say it's not appropriate. The band doesn't make the song. No problem.

Or let's say the band does make the song. But their record label doesn't want the negative publicity that will come will the song. The song isn't recorded. No problem.

Or let's say the song is recorded. But major retail chains don't think the song is appropriate in their "family-oriented" store. So they don't sell it. No problem.

Or let's say the store does decide to stock it. Many people, having hear the song on the radio, don't want to buy something so inappropriate. No problem.

Or let's say, the band accepts the song, the record label produces the song, the retail chain sells the song, and customers are buying it like crazy. Great.

Then some gov't crony hears the song. Not so great. He pushes to have the song banned. Now we have a problem.

Censorship only becomes a serious issue when it becomes a matter of law. Otherwise, it is merely the sum of private choices, individual or collective.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Freedom of expression and freedom of speech do not exist in Canada. Censorship happens on a daily basis.
> 
> And this is not necessarily a bad thing.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

While there is indeed a small amount of "prior censorship" in Canada, mostly associated with the porn industry and sexual content in everyday media, there is no censorship. No one goes to jail in Canada for published works.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Sinc by your lights any personal bit of information posted on here should be left on here no matter how inappropriate????

If a letter was sent to newspaper is NOT publishing it censorship???
If it was going to press and the letter writer COULD withdraw it before publishing is THAT censorship??

Forums and moderators by their nature are reactive not proactive and reserve the right to be. This isn't Hansard.
I'd say Che does an outstanding job. :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> What are you talking about, SINC? There is no censorship here.


Obviously you failed to notice the whole thread is missing at the request of the author?

THAT is censorship at its worst. By request and by someone who is obviously embarrassed by their actions.

What was here for all to see, is now no more. What do you call it?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Confused on the concept:
This forum is privately run on a privately owned server. You and I have NO RIGHTS at all on here, EXCEPT what the owner of the forum, at their discretion, permits us to have.

They could delete every post that mentioned, say, Britney Spears or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Arbitrarily and without explanation, and there would be nothing we could or SHOULD do about it.

You can get mad if you like, you can leave the forum or not. But those are the options.

The owner rents us the sandbox, we play in it, is the way it works.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

It wasn't me!

SINC, if you want to delete this thread, contact me!  

Every poster has the ability to retract a post they have made:
ie: ArtistSeries earlier posts.


I believe MacDoc can defend himself with out a doubt, thread in or thread out.
la la la

--
On a remote yet similar topic...
Would anyone like to hear a Podcast interview with MacDoc?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CanadaRAM said:


> The owner rents us the sandbox, we play in it, is the way it works.


Sorry, but you obviously have not been around long enough to know this is definitely "out of the ordinary". ehMac has never done this before to my knowledge.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So in Sinc's mind the pub owner not only can't remove graffiti about what Sammy is doing to Julie at the request of the graffiti writer - he can't on his own cognizance either.....and it's his wall!!!!!!. 

Strange world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You forget MacDoc that this is NOT your "Pub".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Podcast .......why did that remind me of Interview with a Vampire or some such.....no I don't sport fangs. 

Thank you for a succinct explanation Heart.

••••••

No I don't forget Sinc......but I think YOU don't realize it's not yours. 

It's happened here before on a variety of issues - it's happened there too. It's the nature of reactive electronic forums.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

> This forum is privately run on a privately owned server. You and I have NO RIGHTS at all on here, EXCEPT what the owner of the forum, at their discretion, permits us to have.


Yes, but we do like to push a idea of Community.
As in: *Canada's Mac Community!*


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Obviously you failed to notice the whole thread is missing at the request of the author? THAT is censorship at its worst.


No, censorship at its worst is when books and their authors are burnt into ashes.

You need to look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CanadaRAM said:


> Confused on the concept:
> This forum is privately run on a privately owned server. You and I have NO RIGHTS at all on here, EXCEPT what the owner of the forum, at their discretion, permits us to have.
> 
> They could delete every post that mentioned, say, Britney Spears or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Arbitrarily and without explanation, and there would be nothing we could or SHOULD do about it.
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Excellent post.


I agree!

And I think this thread should be deleted as well. It serves no purpose.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Heart said:


> Every poster has the ability to retract a post they have made:
> ie: ArtistSeries earlier posts.


I revealed the Caramilk secret and was forced to erase it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That was YOU!!!!!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I vote this as the silliest thread on ehMac. Depublishing, or thread removal as it's known here, is not new on ehMac (nor the internet for that matter) and it's happened before. Censorship? Nope. This instance is merely a matter that was resolved by two people privately, despite the author's original intent to make it public, and made the amicable decision that the thread doesn't really serve any purpose to continue to exist...

ergo, it's none of your business.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I was the second or third poster on the MacDoc Spam thread, I would have been interested to know that the matter was resolved peacefully. Merely removing the entire thread may border on censorship, as Sinc contends, but if it has not crossed the line into censorship it is close to this region. It is not as if the thread never existed, and there is the ability of moderators to freeze a thread in its tracks, while adding a comment that the matter was settled in an amicable manner.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yes, that may be true, but leaving the thread locked and viewable to the rest of the people would most likely spawn other threads. However, self-censorship is not necessarily an evil one -- people post their thoughts here and have every right to delete, censor, or de-publish them unlike in the real world where once you speak your mind... you can't take it back.

The fact is, SINC is going on a witch-hunt attempting to look down his nose at any and all involved with the "censoring." Who appointed him as the moral compass of ehMac?



> While whoever posted the original thread may have had a lapse in good judgement, whoever deleted the thread is guilty of censorship in the first degree.





> Or does one person's supposed "judgement" call curtail freedom of expression?


Methinks someone should try less Matlock and more Maalox. (And maybe curtail the use of question marks as well.)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Manny, I don't see Sinc as going on a "witch-hunt". As a compromise, I could see something about a compromise was reached between the two and the thread was being removed. At least then, when someone went looking for it they would see some mention that it even existed.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

SINC said:


> Obviously you failed to notice the whole thread is missing at the request of the author?
> 
> THAT is censorship at its worst. By request and by someone who is obviously embarrassed by their actions.
> 
> What was here for all to see, is now no more. What do you call it?


Sinc - you are an a$$. I thought I held a little more respect for you but I must have been mistaken.

I am NOT embarrassed regarding the original thread and I stood by what I posted. I RESOLVED the issue and it was agreed in PRIVATE that the post could be removed to the benefit of both parties as it may have been seen as damaging in the subject. I have every right to take back what I say in this forum as do you. So when you start to look like an idiot by pushing this dead subject maybe this thread will disappear too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The whole thing reeks of censorship, or worse favouritism.
> 
> It should have stood as presented with the resolution added to let members know it had been resolved.
> 
> ...


1. ehmac management can censor whatever they want - it's a private board
2. you're surprised by favouritism? it's been on ehmac since the beginning


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> While I was the second or third poster on the MacDoc Spam thread, *I would have been interested to know that the matter was resolved peacefully. * Merely removing the entire thread may border on censorship, as Sinc contends, but if it has not crossed the line into censorship it is close to this region. It is not as if the thread never existed, and there is the ability of moderators to freeze a thread in its tracks, while adding a comment that the matter was settled in an amicable manner.


something about 3 monkeys covering their ears, eyes and mouth comes to mind

"If a thread was deleted, was it ever there?"
How very Soviet.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

simon said:


> Sinc - you are an a$$. I thought I held a little more respect for you but I must have been mistaken.
> 
> I am NOT embarrassed regarding the original thread and I stood by what I posted. I RESOLVED the issue and it was agreed in PRIVATE that the post could be removed to the benefit of both parties as it may have been seen as damaging in the subject. I have every right to take back what I say in this forum as do you. So when you start to look like an idiot by pushing this dead subject maybe this thread will disappear too.


 removal of thread and a simple post stating that the thread was deleted for reasons 1,2,3 and amicably so by both 'warring' parties would have been the easiest thing to do and this issue would have gone away peacefully, but....

"reap what you sow"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

simon said:


> Sinc - you are an a$$. I thought I held a little more respect for you but I must have been mistaken.


I don't think name-calling is appropriate. Moderators?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> While there is indeed a small amount of "prior censorship" in Canada, mostly associated with the porn industry and sexual content in everyday media, there is no censorship. No one goes to jail in Canada for published works.


What does that have to do with my original statement?



guytoronto said:


> Freedom of expression and freedom of speech do not exist in Canada. Censorship happens on a daily basis.
> 
> And this is not necessarily a bad thing.


Nowhere did I say that people go to jail. Show me one article of law that ensures we have freedom of speech and I will acknowledge the fact that "I clearly have no idea what I am talking about."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Constitution Act, 1982 
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 


PART I 

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms 

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms 

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 
a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
d) freedom of association.
______________________________________________

Guytoronto, granted it does not say "speech", but I infer that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" includes the notion of speech, in that speech is a form of "expression".


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Sinc - I received an email from Simon about the thread detailing that he felt that his thread was "over the top" and that since it had been resolved was for the most part a mistake. From my understanding both Macdoc and himself had come to an agreement and he felt that leaving the thread there wasn't a good idea.

I read through the thread, and saw for the most part it was a misunderstanding along with a bit of kneejerk. It happens.

By changing any content on this site by someone else, it is a form of censorship but in this case (and a couple of others that have occured) it appeared more of an occurance that both parties just wanted to forget and move on. I don't have a problem with letting bygones be bygones and get past the problem (preferably before it becomes a larger problem and other parties get involved).

So I deleted it with the reason "Deleted upon request by original poster. Issue Resolved." Threads are only soft deleted, so they are not gone permanently, just hidden from view. (I can still see the thread). If this is the case I can bring it back, but I don't see any need to.

On a side note, next time I make a deletion I'll add it to the Mod Log in the ehMac.ca Feedback section. I didn't know that people couldn't see the deleted thread with the deleted notice. 

In Sinc's defence, I understand where he is coming from. The reasoning for why it was deleted weren't made clear, and that is my fault (my ignorance as explained above is no excuse).

As a moderator I won't do anything to the content on this thread, we don't 
"censor" unless we feel it is necessary. From now on I'll be sure to add something to the Mod Log to help keep people appraised of any "sudden" changes.

That said, Macspectrum, I fail to really see any favouritism on ehMac in terms of censorship. Do you mind posting or PMing me so I can understand?

I won't ever say I'm perfect, I'm human and I will make mistakes. Any "moderation" decision that is ever made will never make everyone happy, but if you don't like what I've done it's fine for you to question my actions. The idea on ehMac is you can question the actions of the authority figures here (without being disrespectful). It's a community, there's a reason the name chosen for the moderators was Public Officials.


----------



## VVA88IT (Aug 21, 2005)

All I can say is WOH ... These are the type of threads that discourage a noob like me from posting or even getting involved.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> ...granted it does not say "speech", but I infer that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" includes the notion of speech, in that speech is a form of "expression".


from www.wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech



www.wikipedia.org said:


> Canada
> The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
> Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations.
> ...


This is even more evident when there are media bans on court proceedings. Many people may remember that during the Bernardo / Homolka trials, there was a complete media ban on the proceedings, but information could be obtained south of the border.

Sorry, but free speech does not exist in Canada. Usually this is not an issue because speech generally isn't restricted, but it can be.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

by chelion


> That said, Macspectrum, I fail to really see any favouritism on ehMac in terms of censorship. Do you mind posting or PMing me so I can understand?


oh just a time when someone called me an a$$hole and for some reason I was banned not the person who called me an a$$hole

then there was that time when you took me to task for something silly
BUT
I better not go any deeper, lest I be banned again

authority figures don't like being cut down to size


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Ramblings...

I have real issues with bulletin boards in general. Not because of moderators or "hidden agendas" or "perceived favouritisms" and so on.

The real problem is with semantics and interpretation, through typed words, of what the intent of one's communications mean to the individual reader, whether said typed words were intended for the reader or not.

I am positive that if we could put all ehMac members in the same room there would be no animosity. Nothing beats face-to-face communication. There are nuances that are completely missed by bulletin board communications. It is these nuances that make one's point of view relevant and meaninful. Yet these very nuances are mute when typewritten. Again, this is a problem that is INHERENT with this type of relatively static communication. There are no facial expressions to add to the equation. Little word stressing. Limited time to think and type a response that we THINK would best address someones question or best assert one's position. 

Many posts I have made have been miscontrued or have been taken out of context. Some replies to my posts have had added content that I never stated. This is part and parcel of bulletin board "conversation". It's tough to actually have a CONVERSATION sometimes! Not to mention the fact that some people, myself included, get riled pretty easily when we percieve that our toes are being stepped on for no good reason (in our minds, at any rate).

My hubby used to post here. Then he got so pissed he swore he would never visit again. He hasn't. We talked about it, then I thought I would have a look at ehMac. I'm still not sure if I like bulletin boards. A lot more trouble than they are worth, sometimes. Rewarding, other times....

Hence, we have situations like this. I see SINC has not posted in this thread since this issue here got out of hand. I hope SINC comes back with some thoughts, and with no hard feelings.

Mel


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Mel,

What you write is very true, but then again, as you also state, these bulletin boards are not meant for *conversation*.
At least here you have the option of smilies which helps somewhat if people use and read them properly.

The problem I have here (and elsewhere) is to formulate my comment or reply as briefly as possible but still make sure that it cannot be misinterpreted. Doesn't always work...mostly because some people don't actually read what is written but just glance at the words and create their own interpretation.
But I think the positive far outweighs the negative - especially here on ehmac. I think this is a fantastic group even though ArtistSeries gave me a hard time the other day.  

krs


----------



## sdm688 (Dec 12, 2004)

Is it me, but it seems lately lots of posters have become very testy. Even something simple gets rolled up into something big and people are on the verge verbal jabs. Maybe we can all chill out a bit?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh just a time when someone called me an a$$hole and for some reason I was banned not the person who called me an a$$hole


Because, of course, you did nothing to provoke that in the first place.

Poor poor MACSPECTRUM.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> But I think the positive far outweighs the negative - especially here on ehmac. I think this is a fantastic group even though ArtistSeries gave me a hard time the other day.


I'm glad that krs has a good sense of humour. He's referring to my answering his question literally: http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=31090

This highlights what Melonie so aptly wrote above.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

krs - just loved your last line! Even though I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

To the meat of your post - 

Salient points re "glossing-over" and formulated opinions (often pre-conceived) right on the mark. It's tough to find the right balance of KISS principle and get your point across convincingly.

May I be so bold as to suggest that real discussion on a bulletin board is indeed within the realm of possiblility?

How often bulletin boards are classed as "discussion boards", yet discussions are, more often than not, derailed from real conversation rather quickly, or simply "left to pasture", as no one either has the gumption, inclination or time to respond, especially in a cogent fashion. We are such slaves to time. Which cements your point of "time vs quality/quantity" (glance and post) observation.

Communication breakdowns occur due to generation gaps and all their inherent differences in vocabulary, values, knowledge, experience, up-to-date education, priorities in life, morals, etc....

And it's human nature to find it difficult to admit we are wrong. Add that to the mix and whoa!

And let us hope the good outweighs the bad!

Your point on smilies took me by surprise, but you are totally right! A smiley is worth a thousand words! I had not really given that much thought. Thanks!

 

Mel


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

VVA88IT said:


> All I can say is WOH ... These are the type of threads that discourage a noob like me from posting or even getting involved.


Actually, these are the best type of threads. There are only so many threads on fishing and gardening and favorite song/movie/year/dog breed before I get bored 

The best thing about internet forums is that you can discuss volatile issues that are too sensitive for family gatherings or water-cooler blabber.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Melonie said:


> Ramblings...
> 
> I have real issues with bulletin boards in general. Not because of moderators or "hidden agendas" or "perceived favouritisms" and so on.
> 
> ...


I have a feeling that a one-on-one conversation between myself and a few of couple of the very-rightist or very-leftist on this board would lead to some very hurt feelings.

I never leave a forum thinking "I didn't quite say what I meant to," but this happens in every day life all the time. I think I can be much more specific and accurate when writing than with talking. Even though I think of myself as a good conversationalist. (IMNSHOOM)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole said:


> Because, of course, you did nothing to provoke that in the first place.
> 
> Poor poor MACSPECTRUM.


and nothing happened to you
how did that happen, eh?

something about someone being someone else's client comes to mind.....


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and nothing happened to you
> how did that happen, eh?


I'm not as miserable as you are? I dunno....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> This is even more evident when there are media bans on court proceedings. Many people may remember that during the Bernardo / Homolka trials, there was a complete media ban on the proceedings, but information could be obtained south of the border.
> 
> Sorry, but free speech does not exist in Canada. Usually this is not an issue because speech generally isn't restricted, but it can be.


Wikipedia's interpretation is puzzling, but I'm not going to focus on it, but on what you have said.

In case you haven't noticed, court orders and laws are not the same thing. The right of free speech protects us from inappropriate laws. The degree of discretion given to judges is extremely large. Court-ordered publication bans are really a compromise between the privacy of witnesses and/or defendants, and media access. A judge could completely bar the press from his court, if he wishes. But most don't, but merely use temporary bans in order to allow for some degree of media access.

Laws against slander and libel don't violate free speech either, as these are only civil offenses. Laws against incitement to violence, death threats, or hate don't violate free speech either. You don't need to physically harm someone in order to threaten them. Try to imagine someone saying "I didn't hurt nobody, I was just waving my knife around!"

The Bible and Mein Kampf and the Merchant of Venice can be bought in bookstores today. They are not particularily kind to certain groups. But they are still quite legal. Perhaps because the law doesn't apply here the way you think it does?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole said:


> I'm not as miserable as you are? I dunno....


nope, just that i wasn't ehmax's client
money speaks louder than honesty
sorta like BushCo.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The Bible and Mein Kampf and the Merchant of Venice can be bought in bookstores today.


not at Chapters


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You can't buy the Bible at Chapters? Nonsense.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

macspectrum said:


> and nothing happened to you
> how did that happen, eh?





macspectrum said:


> money speaks louder than honesty


Sorry, but I think when one person is throwing around terms like "nazi" and "jackboot" for what must of been a couple weeks and the target of said words finally replies with "asshole", it's not all that unjustifiable a response.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

macspectrum said:


> [the bible is] not at Chapters


I just checked. Here's a large print version: http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item....ooks&N=35+528389&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1

There are a bunch more editions if you do a search, too. Most of them are available for pre-order, so maybe this is a recent development?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> You can't buy the Bible at Chapters? Nonsense.


let's review for the reading challenged;
posterboy, lpmckenna



> Quote:
> The Bible *and* Mein Kampf *and* the Merchant of Venice can be bought in bookstores today.
> 
> not at Chapters


You want to try again? I've given you a hint with the *bold* text.
One can only wonder what passes for post secondary education these days.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> I just checked. Here's a large print version: http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item....ooks&N=35+528389&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1
> 
> There are a bunch more editions if you do a search, too. Most of them are available for pre-order, so maybe this is a recent development?


Please don't misquote me.

I did NOT say "the bible" was not available at Chapters.
My sentence, if you care to review, negated the entire statement that ALL 3 books were avaialbe at Chapters.
Please review your reading and comprehension skills and don't use [ ] to pretend you are quoting me.
It shows your ignorance and lack of understanding, but most of us already knew that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Sorry, but I think when one person is throwing around terms like "nazi" and "jackboot" for what must of been a couple weeks and the target of said words finally replies with "asshole", it's not all that unjustifiable a response.


I see you and jfpoole are back to that Eva Braun dance routine you two have worked out.

What is "unjustifiable" is the lack of response by "ehmac management" 
must be nice to have a "shield" of "client-vendor" privelege, eh?
That is what is called, ahem, "favouritism."

Do your little dance boys. If the "shoe" fits...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> > The Bible and Mein Kampf and the Merchant of Venice can be bought in bookstores today.
> 
> 
> not at Chapters


Umm... yeah. Two out of three ain't bad.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> I see you and jfpoole are back to that Eva Braun dance routine you two have worked out.
> 
> What is "unjustifiable" is the lack of response by "ehmac management"
> must be nice to have a "shield" of "client-vendor" privelege, eh?
> ...


Now, it's crap like this that gets you into trouble... you'd think you would've learned the first time around. Non? Try stop labelling people bigots, racists and nazis and maybe you won't get shat on.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Umm... yeah. Two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it's crap like this that gets you into trouble... you'd think you would've learned the first time around. Non? Try stop labelling people bigots, racists and nazis and maybe you won't get shat on.


getting **** on is one thing
what i was pointing out was the favouritism that chealion seemed oblivous to
if only i was a client of ehmax, then i might get to call people a$$hole without ramification


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Calling people that, though fun at times, is quite over rated, next time just make up a word that means nutthin, then people will be confused or laugh, Try calling someone a Fling Flong Smellaloop, You know what that means (whatever you want it to mean), it sounds funny, so thus you laugh and the person being a Fling Flong Smellaloop, well, they may laugh too, cause it sounds (or smells) funny! I vote for this to be the Smuchiest Thread ever!

Instead of Sh-- Say Poo!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I see the war is still raging...by attrition of words. Settle down boys, it ain't worth it. 

Getting back on topic...
As the original poster, *Simon* can rightfully ask the admins to remove his post. It's the admin that makes the final decision whether it's proper or not to remove the post, the whole thread or lock it with an explanation. 

What might be questionable, is the fact that no explanation was given and that can lead to misinterpretation and wrong conclusions by those members that saw the original thread. 

FWIW, I receive that 'newsletter' at three different email addresses. I never bothered to worry about it. I've done business with him and I get plenty of email from others I've done business with. It might be better if I received it at only one addy, but it's not that big a deal to me...it doesn't consume my life. LOL!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> let's review for the reading challenged;
> posterboy, lpmckenna
> 
> You want to try again? I've given you a hint with the *bold* text.
> One can only wonder what passes for post secondary education these days.


Jesuitical casuistry.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Melonie said:


> Hence, we have situations like this. I see SINC has not posted in this thread since this issue here got out of hand. I hope SINC comes back with some thoughts, and with no hard feelings.
> 
> Mel


Not to disappoint you Mel, I decided to return for a final thought or two.

Perhaps kps said it best:


kps said:


> I see the war is still raging...by attrition of words. Settle down boys, it ain't worth it.
> 
> Getting back on topic...
> As the original poster, *Simon* can rightfully ask the admins to remove his post. It's the admin that makes the final decision whether it's proper or not to remove the post, the whole thread or lock it with an explanation.
> ...


As for me, when this happens, I call it quits because the topic has sunk to the lowest possible level:


simon said:


> Sinc - you are an a$$. I thought I held a little more respect for you but I must have been mistaken.


Threads disapperaing with no explanation leave us to think the worst. A locked thread or deleted save for an explanation keep us informed of the truth of the matter. In my view this whole thing was simply a mistake in judgement by the parties concerned.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> You can't buy the Bible at Chapters? Nonsense.


You can't buy Mein Kaimf at Chapters - someone decided that it should not be available - a lot of strange editorial decisions at that chain....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The CEO decided. It won't last. And stores can choose not to sell whatever they wish. That's not censorship. I suspect you can't buy Hustler at Chapters, either.


----------



## Ramboman (Dec 13, 2004)

Opinion on original thread: Although I agree with Sinc that it is unusual to see a thread removed, I see no reason for alarm or concern. I trust that the keepers of this service have removed the thread for the right reasons (such as by request, offensive material, etc..). As for the request itself.....although it may be, in the opinion of some, a "cop out".... there is no rule, law or right that this cannot be done. One could start their own service if unhappy with the one being provided (a very good service at that... in my humble opinion  )


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> The CEO decided. It won't last. And stores can choose not to sell whatever they wish. That's not censorship. I suspect you can't buy Hustler at Chapters, either.


I called it an "editorial decision" not censorship.
No, you can't buy Hustler at Chapters


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Wikipedia's interpretation is puzzling...


 Yes, it is very sloppy. 

We certainly do have freedom of expression. In Canada, however, our freedoms are subject to section 1 of the Charter (reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society). So, for instance, parliament can pass laws restricting expression of hate against identifiable groups, because that is a "reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".


lpkmckenna said:


> In case you haven't noticed, court orders and laws are not the same thing. The right of free speech protects us from inappropriate laws.


The section 2 "fundamental freedoms" protect us from acts of government authorities. Judges can't make orders that violate the Charter.


lpkmckenna said:


> The Bible and Mein Kampf and the Merchant of Venice can be bought in bookstores today.


On the other hand, the Charter cannot force a bookstore to sell or not sell anything or bulletin board to publish or not publish anything. Other laws do restrict the sale or publication of certain things, like child porn, and if you were to sell it, the charter would not help you, because those laws are "resonable limits...". Stores and boards can choose NOT TO sell or publish whatever they like.

Finally, expression is not equal to speech. It is not expression to yell "fire", falsely, in a crowded movie theatre. It is not expression for me to scream in your ear.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Please don't misquote me.
> 
> I did NOT say "the bible" was not available at Chapters.
> My sentence, if you care to review, negated the entire statement that ALL 3 books were avaialbe at Chapters.
> ...


Your own failure to express yourself comprehensibly caused the misunderstanding. Your obnoxious response about others' "reading and comprehension skills" reflects more on your own deficiencies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

macspectrum said:


> let's review for the reading challenged;





macspectrum said:


> I did NOT say "the bible" was not available at Chapters.
> My sentence, if you care to review, negated the entire statement that ALL 3 books were avaialbe[sic] at Chapters.


Lets! To paraphrase, you said "<em>none of these books are available through Chapters</em>." I said "<em>actually, at least one of them is</em>" (and in fact, two of them are).

Then you insulted my comprehension skills (which, like being called a racist, never gets old; really.) and said "<em>no, I said you couldn't get all of them</em>." And now I'm saying "<em>My, how pedantic</em>."


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

Thread has been de-railed.

You may continue if you wish on another thread.

This thread will remain up as public record. 

*closed*


----------

