# Free Speech Offshoot



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

It's good to see the mods are right on top of things here, deleting links to the Mohammed caricatures _*more than a month*_ after I linked them. Of course, the need to *appear fair* is important after deleting links to a caricature of Jesus.  

If you still want to see the Jesus pic, go to http://www.moderateview.com/. The writer there links to it on his page.

Of course, at moderateview.com you'll actually encounter a moderate view of things, unlike what you find here at ehMac, despite the occasional half-hearted attempt by the mods. And of course, the mods at ehMac do ironically immoderate things as "moderators." Like this silly event, for instance.

And if you want to see the Mohammed cartoons, most of them show up in Google Images when you search for "Mohammed cartoons."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Since the other thread was locked, I've decided to re-post the inflammatory "capitalist piglet" picture here:










Ok mods, do your thing!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

lpkmckenna said:


> It's good to see the mods are right on top of things here, deleting links to the Mohammed caricatures _*more than a month*_ after I linked them. Of course, the need to *appear fair* is important after deleting links to a caricature of Jesus.
> 
> If you still want to see the Jesus pic, go to http://www.moderateview.com/. The writer there links to it on his page.
> 
> ...


:-( :baby: 

lpkmckenna, not every one of the quarter million posts on ehMac.ca gets read by moderators, and if I knew you had posted a direct link to any overly offensive material on ehMac, it would of been removed immediately. Saying I'm not being fair, because I didn't delete that one link, is kind of like telling a cop, he/she is being totally unfair for giving you a speeding ticket, because they missed that time last week when you were speeding. 

Feel free to go to Google and search for whatever turns your crank. As I said, direct links to images that are vulgar or profane, hateful etc.. will be removed from ehMac when noticed. Its really not that difficult of a concept to understand. 

The discussion of concepts and ideas are not censored on ehMac, as this 18 page thread displays. I certainly respect everyone's point of view. 

However, if you intend on being rude and insulting, you can take it elsewhere.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> If you still want to see the Jesus pic, go to http://www.moderateview.com/. The writer there links to it on his page.


I tend to agree with ehMax, If you want it then go get it,
But please don't make the rest of us look at it as well.

I read the U of T Guerilla and Screw mag's in the 60's and 70's and yes it wasn't censored back then,
But today if we really want to see it then we'll Google it.



> Brief statement regarding “Capitalist Piglet”
> News
> Written by The Sheaf
> Monday, 06 March 2006
> ...


D


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm with ehMax and Dave. There is no need for that type of material here for the majority of us to be forced to view.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ehMax said:


> lpkmckenna, not every one of the quarter million posts on ehMac.ca gets read by moderators, and if I knew you had posted a direct link to any overly offensive material on ehMac, it would of been removed immediately. Saying I'm not being fair, because I didn't delete that one link, is kind of like telling a cop, he/she is being totally unfair for giving you a speeding ticket, because they missed that time last week when you were speeding.


"Overly offensive material?" Rubbish. 

Like I said: _"Your post implies they are all offended. They aren't. We are only hearing the hysterical, hyper-sensitive orthodox side. Just like all religions, there is a continuum of attitudes. These protests are not "the Islamic people," but only the irrational hysteria of ultraconservatives." _ 

Interesting to see your standard of "offensive" is in line with such a reactionary and repressive group of theocrats.



ehMax said:


> Feel free to go to Google and search for whatever turns your crank. As I said, direct links to images that are vulgar or profane, hateful etc.. will be removed from ehMac when noticed. Its really not that difficult of a concept to understand.


My whole point of view was that the cartoons were not offensive. As I said: "These cartoons are not remotely comparable to anti-semitism. The only reason some Muslims are offended is because they *define* depictions of Mohammed as offensive, not because depictions of Mohammed *are* offensive."

Nothing I did (or linked to) was hateful, profane, or vulgar.

But if you're continuing your crusade against "offensive," you forgot at least one: http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=354027&postcount=64



ehMax said:


> However, if you intend on being rude and insulting, you can take it elsewhere.


I've said nothing rude or insulting.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

lpkmckenna said:


> "Overly offensive material?" Rubbish.
> Nothing I did (or linked to) was hateful, profane, or vulgar.


Well, unfortunately for you, that's for me to decide.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Well, unfortunately for you, that's for me to decide.


For the record, I think you are most generous in the latitude you extend to members. 

Seems to me it takes a lot to tip the scales against any one person. 

Hence, they wind up being the masters of their own fate.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> For the record, I think you are most generous in the latitude you extend to members.
> 
> Seems to me it takes a lot to tip the scales against any one person.
> 
> Hence, they wind up being the masters of their own fate.


cough, cough....
not unless said member is also a client....
Je me souviens.

i've said it before and I'll say it again
axioms:
1. ehmac is NOT a democracy
2. it is a private enterprise run and owned by one person
3. the owner can do to/with the site as his heart desires

i accept those axioms and fully expect any or all of my posts to be edited/deleted or my membership to be revoked at any time, for any reason


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

And as I've said Macspectrum.... you're such a repressed man on ehMac. The man always coming down on you. We all feel sorry for you. :yawn:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> My whole point of view was that the cartoons were not offensive. As I said: "These cartoons are not remotely comparable to anti-semitism. The only reason some Muslims are offended is because they *define* depictions of Mohammed as offensive, not because depictions of Mohammed *are* offensive."
> 
> Nothing I did (or linked to) was hateful, profane, or vulgar.


The speaker isn't the only judge of whether or not they were offensive. Actually, I'd say they would be the least important judge of the offensiveness of their dialogue. That is not to say that we should be beholden to the extremely sensitive, I'm just pointing out another view. You don't find them offensive and I don't; that doesn't mean some aren't offended and it doesn't mean that their reasons are lesser. It is a highly subjective matter that involves lines being drawn. I don't know of anywhere that does or should have 100% zero exception free speech. 

Whether those lines are drawn under a strict atheist assumption (religious 'offences' are irrelevant) or something more based on looking at the people involved and determining what goes too far (ehmac) is difficult. I agree with the moderator in this case, even though I'm not personally offended by any of the cartoons.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> And as I've said Macspectrum.... you're such a repressed man on ehMac. The man always coming down on you. We all feel sorry for you. :yawn:



awww, so sweet......
such a silver tongued devil
no wonder you sell so well


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> awww, so sweet......
> such a silver tongued devil


Mirror, Macspectrum. Macspectrum, mirror. 

Just a couple notes regarding the dead horse you keep bringing up ad nauseum. 

1. The "event" of giving you a one week time-out for making a Nazi refereral to another member was several years ago. Yet, you won't let it go. 

2. Your beef is not that I took admin action against you, but because I didn't do the same to another member because they called you an ass in response to the Nazi comment. Yet you won't let it go. 

3. I specifically apologized to you via a PM if I did make an error and was not fair. Yet you won't let it go. 

Whatever... such an oppressed man.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Mirror, Macspectrum. Macspectrum, mirror.
> 
> Just a couple notes regarding the dead horse you keep bringing up ad nauseum.
> 
> ...


"apologized 'if' I did make an error"?
did you run that by the legal dept. before typing it?
talk about a hollow apology

i guess that being an ehmax client does have it's priveleges
how many macs do i need to buy to call someone an ass an not be banned?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "apologized 'if' I did make an error"?
> did you run that by the legal dept. before typing it?
> talk about a hollow apology
> 
> ...


I think the question should be, how many times to you have to be rude and obnoxious before someone calls you an ass? 

I can't remember my exact wording in the PM, but I did offer you a genuine apology. I also explained that any decision had absolutely nothing to do with whether a person had ever bought something from the company that I work for. 

Its all pretty childish to me Macspectrum. And it that vain, it was *you* who started it back then, as is the case with pretty much every instance with you on ehMac. Yet, you keep crying about this incident from several years ago. Boo hoo for Macspectrum. :baby:


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

As ther person who posted the cartoons for people in the discussion to view and to challenge the media... in this case, *ehMac*, I am disappointed that the mods have aired on the side of censorship of ideas and debate... especially after being up for many weeks and being examined thoroughly.

This censorship many days and weeks after fact leaves a bad taste in my mouth and reminds me of 1984, where documents we edited after the fact. For now it's as if the images never existed here.

Is there any reasonable explaination of the removal of the collection of images?

I believe that an open discussion of ideas is essential to democracy and free speech and censorship is the enemy. 

The web remains the only place we can honestly engage the debate about the pictures because it is the only place where we can truly find them... most North American media outlets and publications have chosen not to publish them. And thus most people are misinformed about the content of these mostly tame cartoons.

I respect ehMac and it's moderators and understand that they can do with the site as they will. However, I must ask for a better explanation of the censorship and that you consider reinstating the image.

ehMac's censorship of these images will directly affect my decision to buy ehMac swag or to donate any funds to the site.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> ehMac's censorship of these images will directly affect my decision to buy ehMac swag or to donate any funds to the site.


Let me first say, I don't think whether or not you decide to support the site financially or purchase fun swag shouldn't even be in the discussion. Reason being, the fact has zero to do with any decision on what is approriate/inappropriate on ehMac. 

The reason the images are removed, is that in Canada, we not only have freedom of speech, we also have religious freedoms. I respect all the rights and freedoms afforded in the charter.

I do not mind heated debates on religion, politics, etc.. as the many, many un-edited threads on ehMac attest to. I respect ehMac members various points of view. I respect Muslims, Christians, Jews and people from various faiths. And quite simply, the images posted where more than a little offensive to members of those faiths. So for me, its a no brainer decision to edit those. 

You have to remember, ehMac.ca is first and foremost... a Mac based discussion board. We have the everything else forum to shoot the breeze about other topics, but we make no secret to the fact that it is moderated / censored forum and we try to keep a certain level of decorum. 

If its a news item/topic with images not in your local newspaper, you're most likely not going to find it here.

I do must apologize for something that Chealion mentioned to me yesterday. If/when a mod edits a link, there is a field to describe why the thread is being edited (An example is shown in the attachment). I thought that this description would display to the general ehMac.ca populous. But as Chealion pointed out to me, only the mods can see that link. That's why he started his little mod log, and I should really be doing the same.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> I think the question should be, how many times to you have to be rude and obnoxious before someone calls you an ass?
> 
> I can't remember my exact wording in the PM, but I did offer you a genuine apology. I also explained that any decision had absolutely nothing to do with whether a person had ever bought something from the company that I work for.
> 
> Its all pretty childish to me Macspectrum. And it that vain, it was *you* who started it back then, as is the case with pretty much every instance with you on ehMac. Yet, you keep crying about this incident from several years ago. Boo hoo for Macspectrum. :baby:


and in the end I stopped making any more donations to ehmac and stopped buying ehmac merchandise

you ain't getting any more money from me no matter how many servers you do or do not buy / lease / rent

seems the other magical board is much more open about being a dictatorship

/end cheques


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and in the end I stopped making any more donations to ehmac and stopped buying ehmac merchandise
> 
> you ain't getting any more money from me no matter how many servers you do or do not buy / lease / rent
> 
> ...


:lmao: See my post above. Although you've tried to imply otherwise, sending donations, buying swag, purchasing from a company I work for has absolutely zero, zilch, nada to do with how I moderate this site. 

Thankfully for me Macspectrum, there are a lot more thoughtful, positive and appreciative people in the world. 

FYI, I sleep good every night knowing that while I have many flaws, I try the best I can.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> :lmao: See my post above. Although you've tried to imply otherwise, sending donations, buying swag, purchasing from a company I work for has absolutely zero, zilch, nada to do with how I moderate this site.
> 
> Thankfully for me Macspectrum, there are a lot more thoughtful, positive and appreciative people in the world.
> 
> FYI, I sleep good every night knowing that while I have many flaws, I try the best I can.


You can dress it up how you want, but now the truth is out there.
ehmac isn't as benevolent/democratic as you would have people believe
as you have maintained; It's your decision
let's call it what it is

Thankfully for me I realized the way that ehmac is run and stopped financially supporting it before I spent more money foolishly supporting a "non-profit" venture

to quote the smart and perky small green guy;
"Do or do not. There is no try."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You can dress it up how you want, but now the truth is out there.
> ehmac isn't as benevolent/democratic as you would have people believe
> as you have maintained; It's your decision
> let's call it what it is
> ...


I've never implied that mod decisions are anyone else's but the mods with the buck stopping with me. Decisions aren't made based on popularity or who donates to cover costs on ehMac. 

If there's any truth that's out there, its how a grown man can hold a childish grudge for several years over being modded because he made a Nazi reference to another member. 

The little green guy also once said, "“You will find only what you bring in."  Or something like that. 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Ahem back on topic.
> 
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...549&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
> ...


Thinking about it, there is probably a little of this in the back of my head in my decision to not have any of the images or links on ehMac. In addition to reasons I've already stated, I'd rather just avoid any legal implications to be honest.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You can dress it up how you want, but now the truth is out there.


You really need to stop pouting (if only because, from what I gather, you're over 16) and possibly also reconsider making grand statements that only put your decisions and approach into disrepute.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The explanation seems quite clear. 

lpk: funny avatar but a little over-the-top, perhaps?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

lpkmckenna'd decided he doesn't want to be on ehMac. lpkmckenna posted a very clever and witty image of the ehMax logo burning a Canadian flag. Boy, that will teach me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

He got kicked off for his avatar? If so, perhaps disabling the avatar but posting, in that 'mod' thing, the pic for the record on what it was and that it was removed, is a better solution.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> lpkmckenna'd decided he doesn't want to be on ehMac. lpkmckenna posted a very clever and witty image of the ehMax logo burning a Canadian flag. Boy, that will teach me.


[witty retort repressed]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> [witty retort repressed]


Wow, I'm impressed.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Wow, I'm impressed.


better safe than banned, eh?
who knows, i could have made some reference to a self important, holier than thou irish rocker, but that's just not my style


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Did something happen here that isn't reflected in the thread?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Beej said:


> He got kicked off for his avatar? If so, perhaps disabling the avatar but posting, in that 'mod' thing, the pic for the record on what it was and that it was removed, is a better solution.


I posted this message to lpkmckenna:



> lpkmckenna, not every one of the quarter million posts on ehMac.ca gets read by moderators, and if I knew you had posted a direct link to any overly offensive material on ehMac, it would of been removed immediately. Saying I'm not being fair, because I didn't delete that one link, is kind of like telling a cop, he/she is being totally unfair for giving you a speeding ticket, because they missed that time last week when you were speeding.
> 
> Feel free to go to Google and search for whatever turns your crank. *As I said, direct links to images that are vulgar or profane, hateful etc.. will be removed from ehMac when noticed. Its really not that difficult of a concept to understand. *
> 
> ...


I further sent him a warning via PM, entitled "Your choice". Well, he made his choice. I don't have to take insults from anyone for deciding to remove offensive images from ehMac. If ehMac is not your cup of tea because I won't allow pictures of Christ giving oral sex to a pig, or a picture of the ehMac logo burning a Canadian flag, I'll be more than glad when you leave. Cry censorship all you like, it will fall on deaf ears from me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I further sent him a warning via PM, entitled "Your choice". Well, he made his choice. I don't have to take insults from anyone for deciding to remove offensive images from ehMac. If ehMac is not your cup of tea because I won't allow pictures of Christ giving oral sex to a pig, or a picture of the ehMac logo burning a Canadian flag, I'll be more than glad when you leave. Cry censorship all you like, it will fall on deaf ears from me.


Thank you for the context, it is much appreciated. I too find the 'censorship' wailing to be all too often used in a vacuum, separated from any concept of the people around us. 

The avatar was a personal attack although I've found some dialogue from others here to be more offensive; to the point where I hope they were warned. That said, although I'm relatively easy to 'piss off' it takes much more to really offend me and I know my standards for that are somewhat off (my biggest complaint about Aristocrats is that it was too boring too often  .

If you gave warning, that seems fair. I'm not sure if your warning included the option of posting the picture as an example of an unacceptable personal attack (it's always good to benchmark vague concepts for added clarity). For me, I think that would be best. 

This is another case of 'I wasn't bothered but I can see why others would be.'


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> I posted this message to lpkmckenna:
> 
> 
> 
> I further sent him a warning via PM, entitled "Your choice". Well, he made his choice. I don't have to take insults from anyone for deciding to remove offensive images from ehMac. If ehMac is not your cup of tea because I won't allow pictures of Christ giving oral sex to a pig, or a picture of the ehMac logo burning a Canadian flag, I'll be more than glad when you leave. Cry censorship all you like, it will fall on deaf ears from me.


your board, your rules
now if ehmac donations were considered as "shares" we might have a different scenario, but until then....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your board, your rules
> now if ehmac donations were considered as "shares" we might have a different scenario, but until then....


:yawn:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> :yawn:


I heartily disagree, Sinc! More of a :lmao: .


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Good Call*

Mr. Mayor I agree with your position on this matter. I censored myself from this thread. I did not want to be offended by this tread.

I only looked in on this thread when I saw a post by yourself.

When I post here I view the board as a public meeting and try to conduct myself in keeping with Bourinot Rules of Order (a fine Canadian concept BTW.)

As for members not ever "getting over it" I thought this condition was confined to the Meerytymes where researcher at Dalhousie University discovered individuals with a localised form of Alzheimer's.

In this special form of the condition when the afflicted can not reconginise loved ones, remember their childhood let alone anything else from their past, the only thing they can never forget is the grudge.

Freedom of speech has limits you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater with impunity. The interweb isn't really any different.

Again, Good call Mr. Chairperson! :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> :yawn:


finally we disagree
i was beginning to think i would have to move to AB SINCe i was agreeing with SINC so much...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh no! Anything but move to Alberta, Michael! Spare us!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Oh no! Anything but move to Alberta, Michael! Spare us!


with your disagreement it was you who spared me

"Trust me on this"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh, oh, where's the Sage of SSI when you need him?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Oh, oh, where's the Sage of SSI when you need him?


pickling in a bottle of Lagavulin, I suspect


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now, now Michael, that is just a bit unfair.

He very well could be enjoying a MacEwans you know.


----------



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

Interesting that lpkmckenna's signature was "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting that lpkmckenna's signature was "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie.


the question now becomes an issue of ownership and property
what are the venues in which expression can be free?

on a privately owned computer board? seems not
taking out advertising space in the mass media? again no

seems that the places where we express ourselves are more and more privately owned

how does one have free speech when the places where we congregate are not public?

i believe that with a secular education children can be brought up with less biases, to hopefully one day become adults that are more tolerant, and recognize bigotry and racism for what it is, without the need for legislation as to what is ok to say and what is not

the world needs less "us and them" and more "global community"


free speech; the right of a person to say something that you would spend a lifetime opposing

i'll probably be accused of being simplisitc by the "north by northwest" ill wind that blows through here that believes all things are complicated and must remain so


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting that lpkmckenna's signature was "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie.


I thought about changing my signature to:

"If you think freedom of speech has anything to do with a bunch of geeks on a Mac discussion board, you're totally missing the point."  

I like to think of ehMac as a friendly place to shoot the breeze about Mac related stuff and some other happenings going on in Canada... not a forum to push the boundaries of what's publicly acceptable. 

I enjoy heated debate on issues, including hot button issues. Where I drew the line in this instance was on several things:

- Images and links to caricatures of the religious figure of Mohammed. I respect Muslims and the fact that they find this very offensive when Mohammed is depicted as a drawing. Is it necessary to rub our freedom of speech in their faces just to prove a point?

- Images and links to caricatures of the religious figure of Christ performing a sex act. I respect Christians and the fact that they would find this very offensive. Even if the image didn't contain an depiction of Christ. 

- Being rude and insulting to me / ehMac. Look, I don't have a huge chip on my shoulder. I can be thick skinned and take some serious criticism, many times well deserved. But when people downright insult me, I don't have to listen to it. 

I don't take pleasure in banning people, quite the opposite in fact. If lpkmckenna or any member who was banned were to email me and just say something to the effect that they wouldn't stir up crap, I would let them back on ehMac. I don't need an apology or need my ego stroked or anything. I like it when people like lpkmckenna, Macnutt, Macdoc and others (Yes, you too Macspectrum  ) have strong viewpoints... it keeps things interesting on ehMac. 

In most cases, its just obvious that the member was just going to keep escalating things, picking every word I say apart, and becoming more belligerent. 

Again, another part of the issue was that an instance was moderated, but some people where upset that not every single similar issue was moderated the same. As I've stated, not every single post gets read on ehMac and not every issue gets brought to the mods attention. We then get accused of being sporadic and inconsistent. (Similar to what police hear when they don't pull over every single car that is speeding) 

I will try to fix this some more very shortly as we will be adding an additional mod or two. We have a fun plan in mind to find a good mod for ehMac.  

At any rate, I digress. Somedays, I just have to scratch my head and wonder, where's the love. :love2:


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

ehmax, I agree with you: it's a geek board to talk about geek stuff. 

However, he does have a point in that free speech has been severly altered with the rise of privately owned forums/boards in which the owners/moderators often have no appreciation for what constitutes "free speech". 

AND it is on places like these where lots of meaningful discussions take place, so give your board more credit. 

That said, I think that if he wants to make a stink about your decision to not show the offending cartoons, he should go after the big media outlets who have much more influence on the perception of free speech than a lowly (but much appreciated  ) board like this. Most of them chose not to show the cartoons.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

imachungry said:


> ehmax, I agree with you: it's a geek board to talk about geek stuff.
> 
> However, he does have a point in that free speech has been severly altered with the rise of privately owned forums/boards in which the owners/moderators often have no appreciation for what constitutes "free speech".
> 
> ...


You make a very good point, and I think the topic deserves its own thread (Not that we haven't totally derailed this thread already)  Would you care to start a thread on it?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

imachungry said:


> However, he does have a point in that free speech has been severly altered with the rise of privately owned forums/boards in which the owners/moderators often have no appreciation for what constitutes "free speech".


It's altered in the sense that any of us now has the power to publish our opinions in a place that can be read by millions of people. This is a power that people did not even dream about 30 years ago.

For ehMac to assert policies that he expects us to adhere to does not remotely infringe anyone's freedom. The best way for you to think about this place is as his living room, and we are virtually sitting around the coffee table. Would you suggest that you have the "right" to do or say anything you want in his living room, just because he let you in his front door? 

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is being tossed into jail. Nobody has been told they can't express their views. Some have simply been told not to express certain things _*here*_, in ehMac's living room. We are guests here and we should act like it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i have no illusions that ehmac is a place of free speech
it's a private business and we are subject to the decisions of its owner while we engage in their place of business
period - full stop


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Nobody has been told they can't express their views. Some have simply been told not to express certain things


LOL, look at what you wrote here.  

Anyway, it's Saturday night and my pron collection demands my full attention. 

Freedom of reach.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

imachungry said:


> LOL, look at what you wrote here.
> 
> Anyway, it's Saturday night and my pron collection demands my full attention.
> 
> Freedom of reach.


Collect shrimp do ya?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:
 

> i have no illusions that ehmac is a place of free speech
> it's a private business and we are subject to the decisions of its owner while we engage in their place of business
> period - full stop


(Sorry to derail thread again)

Macspectrum, what point are you trying to make? You made a point before by putting "not-for-profit" in brackets, and now this message about ehMac being a place of business. 

I've never made a secret of the fact that in many ways, ehMac is a commercial enterprise. It has expenses, and it has an income from ads. It has had many months when the income was much higher than the expenses. I've even made payments to personal expenses, and bought some things with the income. 

In other months, expenses were much higher, and they ate into my personal finances. We're coming up to moving to a dedicated server, where ehMac's hosting expenses are going way up to over $500 US a month, and as such, I'll have to find ways to make more income with selling swag etc...

On another note, nearly 3 quarters of a million dollars in used equipment has exchanged hands on ehMac.ca and that has been kept as a free service. 

Overall, up to this point, I've little more than broke even on ehMac. I would love to turn ehMac into a real money making venture and in the future would love to make it a full time endeavor. 

And yes, I own ehMac. Period. Full stop. Does this make me a greedy person? I also buy Tim Hortons cups hoping I win a new car. I must be a capitalist pig. Yes Macspectrum, I'm THE MAN out to get you! :lmao:


----------



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

"I like to think of ehMac as a friendly place to shoot the breeze about Mac related stuff and some other happenings going on in Canada... not a forum to push the boundaries of what's publicly acceptable." Mr. Mayor, to me this is fair. I never saw the avatar, so I can't say what precipitated the banning of lpkmckenna.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I just wish this would go away.

There is nothing to be gained by continuing this dialogue between the pair of you.

First man to cease and desist wins in my mind.


----------



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

Sinc, are you talking about ehMax and yours truly? I don't think we are in a heated discussion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just that not many business ventures ask for donations, but whatever floats your boat

i have come to expect no sort of even handedness since I realize that this is not a true community, but is indeed a place of business and as such we are all subject to the whims of the business owner

i am a member of several other boards and for some reason I have no problems on those boards and the other boards seem to police themselves rather quietly and in a civilized manner
there is censorhip on other boards, but somehow it is understood by the membership

am I that different on the other boards
or 
maybe it's not just me?
or
maybe it's just nothing at all


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

This thread was created to hold the offshoot of the Islam vs. Free Speech thread.

I moved all the posts I felt that were part of the offshoot that happened in the thread into here so it won't water down the other thread anymore then it has.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

This also helped sort out my confusion about why lp was banned, since I had stopped reading that thread. Thanks, Chealion.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Chealion said:


> This thread was created to hold the offshoot of the Islam vs. Free Speech thread.
> 
> I moved all the posts I felt that were part of the offshoot that happened in the thread into here so it won't water down the other thread anymore then it has.


Ah yes Michael. Ever vigilant. Well done!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Chealion said:


> This thread was created to hold the offshoot of the Islam vs. Free Speech thread.
> 
> I moved all the posts I felt that were part of the offshoot that happened in the thread into here so it won't water down the other thread anymore then it has.


Thank goodness we have a real mod around here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax, I, unlike you I believe, have had the privilege of meeting your "mod" in question.

He is wise beyond his years, but . . .

Nope, I'm not gonna tell on him.

We're drinkin' pals!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ohhhh, i thought you meant "maude"
now that's different


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hey man, you best get your bottom out here and meet some real folks!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Hey man, you best get your bottom out here and meet some real folks!


don't know if I might meet an early end at the hands of some big oil "security" personnel once AB intel reviews my CSIS file and declares me an enemy combatant
- one way ticket to Gitmo courtesy of the U.S. gov't and Halliburton


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> don't know if I might meet an early end at the hands of some big oil "security" personnel once AB intel reviews my CSIS file and declares me an enemy combatant
> - one way ticket to Gitmo courtesy of the U.S. gov't and Halliburton


Get a grip man, you're nearly paranoid.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Get a grip man, you're nearly paranoid.


and just what do you mean by that?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just what do you mean by that?


Oh, not hardly anything.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

imachungry said:


> LOL, look at what you wrote here.


You have to read all the way to the period!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> You have to read all the way to the period!


Wait, I know. Don't tell me.

Then you stop, right?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

For clarity's sake I thought I'd point out that Moderators (all TWO of us) don't have the ability to ban people, that's exclusively reserved for ehMax (the Administrator) to keep things as simple as possible[1].

I'm not a fan of the idea that "the Mods"[2] are just beat cops whose sole purpose is to sequester members. I know I haven't been very involved this past week and if you take a look at the Mod Log the community treats itself respectfully enough that action isn't needed regularly. I may be a moderator, but I prefer to think of it as an involved user with a bigger mud bucket.[3]

1 - Think of the idea "Who has keys when the place gets broken into using a set of keys."

2 - It always brings out this picture of Bobbies swarming on overly fast black and white footage for myself. Don't ask.

3 - I can make a bigger mess - Sadly Gretchen wrote off ehMac because of my over reaction to my general inaction.


----------



## lemon (Oct 20, 2005)

Holy crap!!!!
LPK is banned from this board. Man that is a mistake for sure.
He's usually right on the nose about what he says and I have lurked here for a long time. Public board, private board, whatever... no one could knock the sail out of his arguements so he was taken out, I think it was because you were afraid. 


boooooo


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

LOL. Well, if ever there was a more deep and well-respected, long-standing member of our community, Lemon certainly is it. :lmao:

LPM wanted to start a pissing match. He admits that he had no reason other than just to be a prick. So, rather than just let it be... he decided to act like a brat. :baby:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lemon said:


> Holy crap!!!!
> LPK is banned from this board. Man that is a mistake for sure.
> He's usually right on the nose about what he says and I have lurked here for a long time. Public board, private board, whatever... no one could knock the sail out of his arguements so he was taken out, I think it was because you were afraid.
> 
> ...


He bought his own ticket out, plain and simple.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Look, I don't have a huge chip on my shoulder. I can be thick skinned and take some serious criticism, many times well deserved. But when people downright insult me, I don't have to listen to it.


Interesting, because when people were downright insulting to me (and others) on ehMac I was told not to take it seriously. :|


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

PosterBoy said:


> Interesting, because when people were downright insulting to me (and others) on ehMac I was told not to take it seriously. :|


You'll notice at the beginning of my posts I said, 



> Where I drew the line in this instance was on *several things:*


 where the LAST reason being


> Being rude and insulting to me / ehMac


Little verbal jousts are one thing, for which in the past you were also a willing part of. I think its a little different than the final straw I had with this user 
posting an image of our logo burning a Canadian flag and holding up a middle finger. 

This past incident is something that's been put behind me already. Its not like I will dwell on it or bring it up a year later or anything. 

You want interesting? Aside from the flak I'm getting from you now, the only other real flak I've gotten from the recent mod decision is from Macspectrum. Both of you I believe brought up incidents that involve you both, that was quite some time ago, and invovled a very small handfull of comments directed at each other. I can't tell you how many times its been brought up, how many emails, PM's I've received over it from only the parties involved. Macspectrum's mad, becuase he got sidelined a week, and you or jfpoole didn't. You and jfpoole were upset that Macspectrum didn't get sidelined more, and on and on and on. 

I don't think my exact words to you were to not take it seriously, but I would strongly suggest to move on, and avoid getting into arguments with one particular member. The board does have an "ignore member" feature. 

I really like and respect all the parties involved in that incident and really hope that someday the parties can move past that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I need more multi-year grudges. I think I only have one. Better yet, an arch-nemesis. ehMax, will you be my nemesis?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Beej said:


> I need more multi-year grudges. I think I only have one. Better yet, an arch-nemesis. ehMax, will you be my nemesis?


There was the time you made this post.



> I think there are more good movies than ever, *they're just not necessarily at the local theatre.*


Not at the local theatre????!!! WHat the $*#& is that supposed to mean? You got a problem with MY local theatre????  tptptptp 

Oh... it's on Beej. It's on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> There was the time you made this post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your local theatre is the worst in the world! 
There is something very wrong with anyone who disagrees (read: you).

Thanks, I feel more complete now.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Beej said:


> Your local theatre is the worst in the world!
> There is something very wrong with anyone who disagrees (read: you).
> 
> Thanks, I feel more complete now.


Ugh... I will NEVER... I mean NEVER forgive you for that last remark. You are my sworn enemy for life!!!!

You are to me what Joker is to Batman. You're my Lex Luther. You're... *ahem* ok, I'm taking this too far.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I never claimed to be an angel, and the incidents I was referring to happened just a few months back. 

I reported a number of posts where I was being insulted rather than really give it back. Soon after you threatened to ban me and the person being insulting toward me (and one other person) if it continued in any way, shape or form (which was nice, because I'd been doing my best to not give into the goading). 

Later, after asking clarification on what could get us banned, you told me that you don't take things said on Mac forums too seriously, implying that I should not take it seriously either.

Again, I'm not claiming that I've never been guilty, rather that the moderation here has historically been a little uneven.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Ugh... I will NEVER... I mean NEVER forgive you for that last remark. You are my sworn enemy for life!!!!
> 
> You are to me what Joker is to Batman. You're my Lex Luther. You're... *ahem* ok, I'm taking this too far.


Too far? You really don't get it.  
You complete me! Censor that.

Ok, maybe we have gone too far, Nemesis ehMax.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Reminds me of:


> ...Foreman: You bloody fighting again. Break it up or I'll put this pick through your head. Now what's it all about?
> 
> First Miner: He started it.
> 
> ...


(Python, eh!)


----------



## lemon (Oct 20, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Worst banned member comeback ever.



I don't get it? Do you think me a sock?

look at my enrolment date.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Macspectrum's mad


I get upset.
I don't get "mad," unless bitten by a rabid dog. 
Thankfully that hasn't happened, yet.
tptptptp


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> ignore "member" feature.


oh man, that's just TOO easy for a strict Freudian


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the question now becomes an issue of ownership and property
> what are the venues in which expression can be free?
> 
> on a privately owned computer board? seems not
> ...



You have the freedom to start your own online community and base it as you wish.

I missed the whole debacle regarding IPMcKenna linking to those stupid cartoons, but the creation of those cartoons in the first place was absolutely irresponsible and an abuse of free speech. For starters, the Muslim extremists are ****ing it up for the rest of the Muslim world -- although I also am critical of that Muslim world not taking care of its own in this regard and many others (they should have taken Hussein out years ago, themselves). If there were cartoons showing the 9/11 extremists trampling on the Koran on their way to the airport, or tossing the Koran aside in favour of an airplane users manual or something, THAT would've been a reasonable piece of political critique. But not representing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban -- or worse. Besides this, it is also the fact that Mohammed was depicted in the first place that could cause protest (although only support non-violent protest), as Muslims (or the Quran itself) does not permit images of Mohammed.

At it's core, it seems to me that the Muslim religion strives for peace, but has been systematically hijacked by some of its own sons. On the other hand, some of the nicest, most peaceful people I have met in my life were Muslim. And then, you've got The Clan and white supremacists perverting the bible, as well as a long, bloody history of that book (the crusades, the conquering of the new world) -- and the Koran -- being abused by frail mortals who wreak destruction in the name of (their interpretation of) GOD. It's disgusting. One would hope that, after all these centuries of learning the hard lessons at our own ignorant hands that we'd learn.

But, back to free speech. Like Stan Lee once wrote, with great power comes great responsibility. Just because _we can_ say anything doesn't mean that _we should_. There needs to be more thought and respect practiced in this world on all sides. It's the only way we will collectively survive, and the only option to this is ultimate genocide. This includes calling Christmas "Christmas" and not some damned "Festival of Lights". That also means, in my opinion, to respect the _peaceful_ expression of religion of all others, but also to respect the _peaceful_ cultural trends of the particular land one may live in. All traditions should be supported by others, because that's what would ensure the support of your own. Diversity, mutual respect and supporting each other is the only answer.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> You have the freedom to start your own online community and base it as you wish.


editorial policies of private internet boards don't trouble me

the airwaves belong to the people 
they belong to us and as such radio and tv media owe us an opportunity to make our cases known
the privatization of mass media by corporations that have no interest other than to create profit, regardless of any social impact troubles me

corporations, by their very defintion, have as their only "raison d'etre" - profit
profit regardless of socio-economic impact on the society that has granted them their status of "person" (i.e. to own property, etc)

it's time for a re-defintion of the "corporation" to make the people in charge responsible so as to not operate in a legal vaccum

corporations need to have as part of their agenda to do more than just make profit - they need to create a better society via the types of priveleges and mechanisms afforded only to corporations


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Hahahhaha. Apparently, the MaCNNers aren't having any of it. 
(http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=288735) 
For instance:

"Move on, or make your post more sensational."

or, (and here's the real kicker!)

"i just went to ehmac and its so yawn worthy. viva la macnn ;-)"

Apparently, American Mac-head ways eclipse our profound subtleties. They're bad-ass*. And yet so refreshing, like the bad kids in grade school. Hmmmm. He's like a fish out of water. Question is, will the over zealous prodigal son return, world-weary and discontent with the exercise of his newly found free-speaking, free-wheeling, free-loving ways? 

Viva la ehmac moderation.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> editorial policies of private internet boards don't trouble me


Your constant bellyaching about this "nazi" episode from oh so long ago betrays that statement. Give it up.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

tedj said:


> Hahahhaha. Apparently, the MaCNNers aren't having any of it.


I jumped over there to check out what IPmckenna said. MAN, he knows how to wear out his welcome before there's time to even offer it! What an absolute drama queen!  And, given _his own account_ of what went on, and what he did to escalate it, I support the ban.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Your constant bellyaching about this "nazi" episode from oh so long ago betrays that statement. Give it up.


seems it bothers you more than me
i just remind the mayor that this is no democracy every time he pretends it is
donations and google ads....
hmmmmmmm
profit making venture or hobby?
seems to me that the "other" magical board never asks for donations, doesn't have any google ads or sponsors, except his own
doesn't pretend to be a democracy

mass media concentration in the hands of a few is far more troublesome for many except maybe you, who seems much more intent on shooting the messenger and ignoring the message


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If it bothers you that much Macspectrum, why do you stay around?

Not trying to goad you, seriously just curious. You've already said in the past that you were leaving and not coming back, but then came back after a few months, so what gives? I don't think that ehMax has ever said that ehMac is a democracy, just that it's a friendly place (which for the most part it is, unless you do something to get yourself banned).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

tedj said:


> Hahahhaha. Apparently, the MaCNNers aren't having any of it.
> (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=288735)
> For instance:
> 
> ...


Nice link, I even checked out a couple other threads there. It reminds me of why I didn't participate in forums (fora?) until I found ehmac. Good potential but too much breathless one-upmanship and denigration; I didn't enjoy secondary school and I have no intention of trying it out again.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i just remind the mayor that this is no democracy every time he pretends it is
> ...
> donations and google ads....
> ...
> mass media concentration in the hands of a few


I don't read all of ehmax's posts, but I don't recall him saying or pretending that this was a democracy.
...
There's something wrong with asking for donations? Better avoid PBS.
What's the problem with google ads? Someone making a profit off this service is a problem? You have many options on that front.
...
Good topic for discussion; bad topic for projectile righteousness.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> seems it bothers you more than me


typically, it not what you say that bothers me, macspectrum; it's just you that bothers me.



> i just remind the mayor that this is no democracy every time he pretends it is


Oh, thank the Lord you're here! You do _so much_ for us all :love2: 



> donations and google ads....
> hmmmmmmm
> profit making venture or hobby?
> seems to me that the "other" magical board never asks for donations, doesn't have any google ads or sponsors, except his own
> doesn't pretend to be a democracy


News flash: there is no free lunch. Presumably, MacDoc rolls his bandwidth and hardware costs into the promotional costs for his own company. ehMax does not fall under the same scenario. Like many of us, the man's simply a cog; a cog with a passion. If you're willing to cough up the dough to host ehMac, then maybe _you'd_ sleep better? Thing is, I and most others here already do sleep well, not caring about this issue you harp on about. As a result of you being out of touch with the community, you tend to become your most desired thing in this world: a royal PITA. _Congrats!_ :clap: 



> mass media concentration in the hands of a few is far more troublesome for many except maybe you, who seems much more intent on shooting the messenger and ignoring the message


You are saying this in the context of ehmac.ca??! Oh man. Save that for where it matters -- AND where it is true. 

I would ask you the same question that Posterboy did, but we all know the answer: You dig disturbing ****.









I'll not continue this thread with you, Macspectrum. Although I don't hang out in "Everything Else" much, I've lurked enough to know your style. It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on........ You like to hear yourself talk so much, and you prattle on with your principles at the expense of any reasonable thought "just 'cuz". So, have at it! As all of the spit and vitriol delivered from thy ego has ZERO MEANING in my real life (it's aaaaaall just 1's and 0's, baby), my life will be going on elsewhere.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Hey everybody. Watch this:

*CARBON SUCKS HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!*











See? Nothin'.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> seems it bothers you more than me
> i just remind the mayor that this is no democracy every time he pretends it is
> donations and google ads....
> hmmmmmmm
> ...


Hi Macspectrum. Sincerely, I don't ever remember stating or implying that ehMac was a democracy. Profit making venture or hobby? It's a hobby right now in which I want to stay in the black, hence the Google ads and solicits for donations. A dedicated high end server costs well over $500 US a month. Plus licenses for software like vBulletin, Photopost Classifieds & Gallery etc... No, I'd rather not pay for those out of my pocket. 

As of this writing, the "other" site has 3 people on it, one including the owner. ehMac.ca has 150 live people on it. (And no, that does not include any bots from search engines). Even still, there are other sites which I would consider full on commercial sites with full-time staff etc. like MacNN... Their forums as of this writing have 555 people online. Yes they have ads, and look at the links on every page:

"Support MacNN, buy from The Apple Store, iTunes.com, Amazon.com, 
Buy.com, TechDepot, OfficeDepot, Computers4Sure, or *donate*."

As ehMac has been growing, I have been re-investing in its growth too. I'm just in the process now of finalizing details on a contract to add somethings to ehMac that I've been meaning to do: A new review section to review products, an updated design of the site with user selectable themes/colours, and ehMac.ca email addresses for members and more. A lot of this can now be done with the dedicated server as we moved from about 60GB of available bandwidth to 1900 GB of available traffic per month. 

If the situation ever presents itself, I would love to make ehMac.ca a full-time endeavor (A commercial, profitable venture) and I think I've always been very candid about that. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, I'm very busy and happy with my day-job so I'm content to just stay in the black with ehMac and have it as a fun hobby. (Most days it's fun)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

My personal favourite quotes from that MacNN thread:

"im so glad that everyone from Toronto is not like you. your making Torontians look bad"

"I certainly hope you're not older than 12."










And that's just the first page....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Not trying to goad you, seriously just curious.


oh, puhlease.....
you and jfpoole do nothing, but


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> my life will be going on elsewhere.


you actually make me believe there is a God


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

gah, macspectrum, can you please include the name of the person you are quoting. I don't recognise that last one at all, and I don't really want to have to plow through the thread to find it, since there is a button that would have included the name of the person automagically.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

RevMatt said:


> gah, macspectrum, can you please include the name of the person you are quoting. I don't recognise that last one at all, and I don't really want to have to plow through the thread to find it, since there is a button that would have included the name of the person automagically.


He was responding to Macaholic.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

RevMatt, a text search on the pages would have promptly yielded the answer to your question -- and the answer is seven posts up.

EDIT: make that eight posts up. « MannyP Design » beat me to the punch!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

'tis on the previous page for me. And thanks, MannyP


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> gah, macspectrum, can you please include the name of the person you are quoting. I don't recognise that last one at all, and I don't really want to have to plow through the thread to find it, since there is a button that would have included the name of the person automagically.


i don't use the 'quote' button if i am not going to use the entire post since i have found that editing the quote to shorten it has resulted in errors when trying to post it
something about "minimum or maximum characters"

that means i then have to manually type in the name of the writer
i know i am not the only one that doesn't always include the writer in their quotes

so as to not make your life all that more difficult, as the resulting 'gah' indicates a rise in blood pressure, i'll try to post the original writers of the quote*, but your mileage may vary

* - offer void where prohibited by law


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh, puhlease.....
> you and jfpoole do nothing, but


Oh grow the **** up. If you want to take everything I say as some kind of ad hominem, fine. Just stop pretending that it's for any reason other than your own persecution complex. I asked a pretty simple question, nothing more.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

Me?
I just came here for some TLC.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

DP004 said:


> Me?
> I just came here for some TLC.


sorry, we're all out
only piss and vinegar


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Oh grow the **** up. If you want to take everything I say as some kind of ad hominem, fine. Just stop pretending that it's for any reason other than your own persecution complex.  I asked a pretty simple question, nothing more.


['rolls eyes' emoticon]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ['rolls eyes' emoticon]


And the hits just keep on rollin'...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> And the hits just keep on rollin'...


unfortunately the 'wit' doesn't


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macspectrum, I am going to put this as simply as I can for you. I don't goad you because I don't have to. You take everything I say as goading anyway.

So, are you going to answer the question, or no?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

PosterBoy said:


> Macspectrum, I am going to put this as simply as I can for you. I don't goad you because I don't have to. You take everything I say as goading anyway.
> 
> So, are you going to answer the question, or no?


Your question being:



> If it bothers you that much Macspectrum, why do you stay around?
> 
> Not trying to goad you, seriously just curious. You've already said in the past that you were leaving and not coming back, but then came back after a few months, so what gives?


In all honesty, I don't think this is a question you want to know, just because "your curious." Although Macspectrum and I aren't best buddies as he'll be the first to admit, I would have to agree that both you and jfpoole often say things just to goad someone on. 

What's most annoying to me is that when you get a reaction, you give a reaction that escalates things... then I get all these moderator alerts followed up with accusations about being an uneven moderator and being hypocritical. I've been the recipient of more than one "just curious" type questions that I refuse to get sucked into. 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by PosterBoy
> Oh grow the **** up. If you want to take everything I say as some kind of ad hominem, fine. Just stop pretending that it's for any reason other than your own persecution complex. I asked a pretty simple question, nothing more.
> 
> ...


:clap: for the restraint


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

It's all too easy to be a $hit disturber from the comfort of our chairs and from behind the safety of our remote computer monitors. People should just relax, be reasonable to each other and not allow their base ego to indulge itself.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Macspectrum, I am going to put this as simply as I can for you. I don't goad you because I don't have to. You take everything I say as goading anyway.
> 
> So, are you going to answer the question, or no?


What was the question, again?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ehMax said:


> In all honesty, I don't think this is a question you want to know, just because "your curious."


You not believing me doesn't make it any less true. I, for one, don't think it unreasonable to wonder why a guy who often complains about the place bothers to stick around.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:



> Your question being:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aiieeeeeee!!!
   

the mayor has figured out our game
posterboy, jfpoole, we need to move our "act" elsewhere...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

PosterBoy said:


> You not believing me doesn't make it any less true. I, for one, don't think it unreasonable to wonder why a guy who often complains about the place bothers to stick around.


There's been quite a few times that you've complained. I'm not so sure if Macspectrum or Macdoc were "just curious" and asked you the exact same question, you would be level headed about your answer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> *What an absolute drama queen!*  And, given _his own account_ of what went on, and what he did to escalate it, I support the ban.


This is funny - weren't you the guy who said you were leaving this board?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah. And I'm back -- a little. That bum ya out?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Yeah. And I'm back -- a little. That bum ya out?


Barely notice it either way.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------

