Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to The usual millisecond after clicking Post

What Did You Intend By Shutup?
Mark Eby — (archived)

Now I know you didn't mean to speak as a moderator initially, but its pretty clear you wanted him to stop voicing an opinion you found unpalatable on CE. You were giving him the option to debate the term on flame, but I don't think the issue what constitutes treasonous behaviour belongs on flame just because you don't want to hear it. If he called a specific poster treasonous then I think that would belong on flame.

Have you ever heard me tell EP or Bary Digregorio to shutup? I haven't even said this to people like DL. I haven't because I think that is assinine and do believe very strongly that everyone has a right to voice their opinion. Yet here we have had numerous moderators use the word at the same time they are claiming to defend free speech by demandintg that treason not be used in any way but their way even though it is quite clear to anyone bothering to look that they are using a limited definition.

You can't shut me up by a vote.

You can't shut me up by ridicule.

You can shut me up by making arguements that don't contradict yourselves or those on your side, but you don't. You claim accusations of preaching treason are the same as accusations of treason yet don't argue against those that claim it is only a crime. Similarly those that say it can only be a crime don't come back and admit Gary didn't actually accuse anyone of treason or that you were wrong in that claim. You all claim to be concerned about calls of treason effecting free speech, but have no comncern that you are trying to stifle free speech by setting arbitrary definitions and claiming only those should be used. You are not taking the draconian measures of deleting offending posts, but you are argueing against speaking of the topic rather than debating the topic.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)