Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to and yet further dishonest misrepresentation -

re: and yet further dishonest misrepresentation -
Mark Eby — (archived)

Well Daniel, I consider your comments rude and uninformed, but this is flame and you are new to a looooong thread so I'll cut you some slack and try to answer your questions.

Why do I consider a threat of censhorship banning or deleting to have been issued? Try Roberts initial comments back at CE. "This being Community and not Flame, I'm not at liberty to tell you exactly what I think of that statement. Put up or shut up, Gary: Go over to Flame and explain what you mean by that, or never say anything like that again. "

Yeah I'm so dishonest. It's dishonest to treat comments like those as attempted censorship. And it's also dishonest to ask people to use their brains to apply the definition of treason to actions taken in a war on terrorists who's main recruiting tool is propaganda.

For the last time. My point is not primarily about who has commited treason on these boards or even that anyone has for sure, it's that Gary's general comment is a potentially valid viewpoint and should not be treated as some awful crime. ALL of you who deny that any comments on these boards could ever possibly be construed as aiding the terrorists propaganda campaign are absolutely full of crap. ALL of you who claim that such actions can not possibly be considered treason are also full of crap. ALL of you who treat such comments as offensive and worthy of reprimand but have no problem with your side making offensive comments are full of crap. All of you who think making accusations of potentially criminal acts is worthy of reprimand, but making comments potentially encouraging terrorist actions deserves no reprimand are full of crap. All of these issues are legitimate issues for debate, but to threaten one side for voicing their position and especially turning a blind eye to opposing actions of equal or worse magnitude is nothing but intellectual bullshit.

Any of you willing to debate where we should draw the line between honest debate on the issues and whether free speech allows any line to be drawn between considered debate and primarily aiding the enemy without resorting to highschool level name calling or resting on moderator credentials are welcome to do so back at CE where the moderators have to act civil just like everyone else.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (282 posts)