Interesting.  I'm trying to understand why it was removed.

Looking at the "Welcome to the First Amendment Board" posting by Bigdoggie Mod, he says postings will be removed if they contain personal information or create a legal liability.  I suspect that the following comments may have triggered the removal (not agreeing or disagreeing with that decision):

"Does anyone have Chris Brown's e-mail..."

"Tell us about all of the prior accusations, charges, arrests, and convictions for dishonest activity?"

Also, the posting included a link to another site, which theoretically could be used for posting personal information and/or creating legal liability.


-- Modified on 11/1/2002 10:06:48 AM

"What is the point of free speech if it only applies to those who suck up to you?"

A common mistake made among those who have aspirations to power, and a typical tactic of those who already have power, and wish to maintain it. Silencing the opposition almost never works; giving them rope and letting them hang themselves with it, is much more effective. I'm sorry TBD never figured that out, and hanged himsef with his own rope instead. (Grammar-bitch note -- yes, look it up, that shouldn't be "hung," it should be "hanged." Hang, hung, hung -- to dangle a picture. Hang, hanged, hanged -- to dangle a human. Not an inappropriate reference, given the circumstances, although only metaphorically ... I'm sure this isn't a capital case. It certainly is capitol.)

I remember on several occasions well before the Operation Flea Collar event took off, that long-time posters at the TBD boards often got involved in "discussions" that became heated. This flame stuff happens on the internet. We have all seen it.

What was interesting about the way the TBD moderators took care of it, what that they NEVER managed to be clear on the REASONS why certain posters and posts were allowed to remain, while others were deleted or banned. ALWAYS the TBD moderators explained themselves with something useless, like, "Don't be childish and your posts won't get banned," or, "Everyone knows you can't post like that," or, "Please see rule 17, no personal commentary" (when there hadn't been any), or a host of other non-reasons: basically, "if you can't figure it out yourself then you aren't wanted here." The appearance of rationality, in utter total absence of logical content.

I concluded, from those episodes, that the people at TBD weren't so much interested in running bulletin boards, as in setting up opportunities for themselves to kick people off of bulletin boards. Obviously, the best way to set yourself up to be able to kick someone out of the house, is to own the house. I then wondered, why would anyone go out of his way to build a house and then invite people for a party, just to be able to make these visibly pompous displays of kicking out (often the rather more desirable) guests?

Aha. The obvious answer: because there was ALSO a private party going on. And it doesn't feel private, unless you can exclude certain people. The fact that I wasn't invited to that private party, and also generally wasn't someone excluded as an unwanted guest, didn't mean that the private party wasn't going on. I just couldn't see it. But I could see the implications of it, inferred from the fact that such outwardly self-congratulatory expulsions were being made so often.

From that long set of concatenated implications, and just a "general" sense of the childish impetuosity of the moderator(s), I decided TBD wasn't the best place in the world to air my participation in the hobby. I never joined the boards; never gave him money; never really participated in anything except general discussions of a "philosophical" nature (whether the hobby should be legal; how to lose weight; how annoying it is when providers act princessy rather than money-for-service; etc.), and then only when and where sign-up and posting was anonymous and free. I'm proud to say, at least on this occasion, my good character judgment aided me in avoiding a perhaps unfortunate eventual association.

So, I'm not surprised that Operation Flea Collar is looking to cage the loudest, most obnoxious of the dogs in the pack. We all of us are minor doggies yipping at the heels of society. If we remember to do it discretely, and not offend people in the process, we'll probably be allowed to continue our victimless barking. But when one of us gets up on his haunches and tries to prove he's bigger, better, and louder than the rest, it may or may not be a problem that he barks a lot; but it WILL eventually be a problem that he WANTS to bark that much.


-- Modified on 11/1/2002 11:46:53 AM

TBD has always censored posts with which he didn't agree.  It is his right to do so as it is TER's right to censor posts.  However, I find it funny that a board touting free speech and the first amendment has to set up a seperate board for free speech. LOL  Sort of confirms the fact free speech was never allowed on his board!  As your posts indicates, even with this new board nothing has changed over in TBD land!

According to a new post on the board in question, the post was never actually made, 'cause Mr. Schlong's broken the rules so many times on other boards that he's not allowed to post at all.

Having lurked on the DC board for a while and seen Mr. Schlong's attitude, it wouldn't suprise me.

TBD's put a copy of the post on the board, so all those who've cried censorship can chill out and just get back to hobbying.

Schlong, you ARE a lawyer, right? So how hard is it for you to believe that their lawyers probably don't want any information pertaining to that case posted on the boards right now?

I never saw them say they will not censor the board... this board is for discussing other issues.  EVERY BOARD CENSORS POSTS. Among other things.

Nicole