It has just come to me, the negative of this spinoff, I saw messages disappear. SYSOP, I may have been born, but it wasn't last night. May the Bird of Paradise, well, you know the rest............

-- My God (Somebodys@god.com), April 28, 2000

Answers

The only message I have seen deleted was an ad for a company out of Hong Kong selling computer ware. What did you see deleted?

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 29, 2000.

Provide the answer My,

Where did u see the deletes, before you jump on the sysop..?

Provide, Provide, Provide, or go hide.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

consumer,

My responses to you were deleted, on the thread about the car accident.

I tried to post a different point of view. I was told by the sysops that unless I was supportive of the people praying, my posts would be deleted.

About six or seven of my posts were deleted.

Will this post be deleted because I didn't agree with the sysops?

-- (retard@but.happy), April 29, 2000.

You were told this by which sysops? Do you have a copy of the message and, if so, can you post it?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 29, 2000.

Jim,

Please take a look at "Urgent Request!!!."

The post is by "OldTB2K Forum Regular." Shortly after this post, my posts were deleted - and deleted.

I questioned the validity of the original post. I didn't use foul language, I didn't use ad hominim attacks.

The original poster said an outstanding doctor was treating the injured person. I asked for the name of the doctor. My post was deleted.

I asked for the name of the hospital the injured person was in. My post was deleted.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 29, 2000.

Ad hominem. Sorry for the error.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 29, 2000.

Jim,

Peek under the thread "Urgent Request" which was started by Cap'n Fun.

RETARD,

You KNOW you were wrong. This man simply asked for prayer for a child who had been in a VERY serious car accident with severe injuries.

YOU wanted PROOF? YOU challenged Capn about LOCATION, etc...Did You not?

Jim,

That is when OTFR drew the line. I dont blame him/her... I APPLAUDED the decision. I will go look in the deletes to see the response to from the retard, although I really am not all that interested.

I love Capn fun, he is a good man. This was wrong what retard did and TARD, YOU KNOW IT...

Why dont you start an APOLOGY thread and if you are sincere, I will let go of it. If you dont wish to apologize, 4-get you. Did you think before you posted?

----consumer who was completely clueless to retard's behavior.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Ok, I give, did anybody see the deleted thread or where it went to?

I know we USED to have one.....

---thanks.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

It went to the TB2000 Deleted Threads forum and is at the end of the ONE thread that Old Regular started there for this purpose.

Just click on LUSENET [above] and look for TB2000 Deleted Threads [or something like that.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 29, 2000.

>>I questioned the validity of the original post. I didn't use foul language, I didn't use ad hominim attacks. ... I asked for the name of the doctor. My post was deleted ... I asked for the name of the hospital the injured person was in. My post was deleted. <<

Retard, can you understand that what you did could be seen as insensitive and hurtful?

I suspect you are not a parent and do not understand the extreme painful emotions of a parent whose child is hurt. Think of the worst hurt you have ever felt as a result of loving someone. A parent's love for their young offspring is deeper and more vulnerable than any other love, bar none. As a result the hurt they feel when their child is massively injured is one of the worst emotional pains around.

Now weigh the two needs, your need to question the post, and the need of a person in pain for succor, and you can see you come out way behind.

WHY did you need that information? WHAT good were you hoping to accomplish? WHY does that good outweigh the other needs of the other people involved?

Or take this tack. Your mother dies unexpectedly and in pain. You've been spending some days by her hospital bed and are grief-stricken. the funeral is in two days. You come here and express some sorrow, looking for some human understanding from your cyber-pals. And someone starts expressing doubt your mom died and asking for a lot of corroborating evidence. You'd probably rather wring that person's neck than respect their need to make you justify your post as legitimate.

Sorry. OTFR was well within reason to consider your posts as containing more potential for harm than for good.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 29, 2000.

consumer,

The original post by "cap" was a minor rewording of the very tired "Plea for Sympathy" that has been bouncing around the mails and the net for many decades.

I got mail many years ago that was exactly the same as cap's post.

Most of these "My best friend's...My nephew's wife..." pleas usually ask for a small donation "for the family." To his credit, cap didn't do this.

It is a hoax that takes advantage of well-meaning nice people.

For shame, cap.

that ha

-- (retard@but.happy), April 29, 2000.

HEY retarded :

I emailed capn on this one, Got a better idea, lets just ask OTFR.

YOU WERE WRONG and YOU know it.

guess you cant even admit that, but hey, cooolll, your name says it all anyway.

For the record, I will let others know when I get email from Capn. as I asked for an update.

BTW, HE DID not ask for a donation because it WASNT about that, and YOU damn well know it.

I hope all your damn posts get deleted, why? Because I do.

=====rant offf

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

consumer,

I don't yell at you. Why are you yelling?

----------------

Brian,

I don't see why my questions are "hurtful."

The people that posted to Urgent Request!!! are clearly nice people. I never said otherwise.

I had a different point of view. Maybe my point of view was wrong. But I thought that on this uncensored board, one was permitted to post a point of view, even if it proved to be wrong.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 29, 2000.

Anita,

Thanks, went there, found that. Anyone else care to see "why" I yell at retard take a peek.

Retard, Post an apology if you are sincere, otherwise just shut up.

You owe the Capn a BIG apology as well the rest of us 'nice' folks.

What dont you get about this?

No apology? If you were sincere, you would, I'm calling you out, lets 'see' how 'real sincere' you are... Because nobody is passing out hankies for your whines babe.

Now, there, I didnt even YELL that time.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Consumer and Brian, I must take exception with you on this one. I read the retards request for more information from capn fun and I too felt he was subtlety questioning the validity of the story. So what? If we start deleting posts for that reason we are no better than Eds place or other censored sites. Was he possibly insensitive? Maybe. Is Cap,n fun beyond questioning on this forum? Sure as hell hope not. I dont necessarily agree with retards content but I am extremely upset that we have started on a course of selective deletions.

Whos to say what is good and can stay,

Are we going the EZ board way.

Im against censorship,

Even when tongues will slip,

Keep this board unrestricted every day!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 29, 2000.

Agreed Ra.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 29, 2000.

Ra,

Look at his/her post on the Urgent thread. He/she states I do not believe you. Who cares whether the tard believes it or not.

Shame on you too unc...what about decency/compassion here? Did you check the deleted thread?

See for yourself. I am not advocating censorship, or I would not be here. But this was wrong.

How would you both feel if you needed some help/prayer, whatever and someone came down on you that way? Tell me it wouldnt hurt.

Why ask why? Retard instead chose to challenge, and FWIW, is doing pretty good job of getting 'pity' dont cha think?

Wont get none from me, if it were my child I would have went off.

Capn is a good poster, and became a cyber friend in the process.

I just think/feel that if the tard is sincere, he would apologize.

BTW, are you then saying OTFR was wrong also?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Retard: I don't see why my questions are "hurtful."

I know.

Ra: I too felt he was subtlety questioning the validity of the story. So what? If we start deleting posts for that reason we are no better than Eds place or other censored sites.

I am not arguing that deleting Retard's post was necessarily "right", so much as I am arguing that it clearly falls in the grey area where more than one right conflicts with another and judgements can differ.

First, this is not truly an "uncensored" forum, in spite of its name. OTFR clearly stated in the forum policies that some censorship will be exercised, at OTFR's discretion, based on some rather broad criteria. That's how it is. I would hardly say that OTFR has made this place "no better than Ed's place". It appears much better to me.

Once an article gets into the grey area, it takes judgement to resolve its fate. Only one judgement makes any difference: OTFR's. My argument was that OTFR's judgement was reasonable enough to satisfy me. I happen to have a daughter who has suffered many severe health problems since birth. I cannot be neutral or objective about the situation of the presumed family for whom the prayers were asked.

Retard makes the point that similar, but bogus, pleas have been floating around the Internet for ages. However, since in this case all that was asked was prayers, not donations, I do not see that the potential for harm was very great even if the post was bogus.

Again, it is the weighing of several conflicting rights that taxes the judgement, not the simple right-wrong judgements we normally make. It cuts no ice with me to say that censorship is wrong. Sure it is. So what? You need to show that OTFR's judgement was wrong in this case. In other words, that Retard's right to know outweighs the need to protect the vulnerable, based on this instance. Tie goes to the runner (OTFR).

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 29, 2000.

consumer,

YES!! OTFR was wrong to delete the posts. Bigoted, profane and offensive posts have all been allowed to remain, with very few exceptions. If OTFR starts deleting posts because she thinks someone is not being nice to a regular or one of her friends, this will be no different than what the EZBoard has done. Precisely why a lot of people don't post there.

We could start a separate thread of particularly ugly posts that have been allowed to be on this forum, and compare them to retard's posts. I believe it would make his deletions look completely unjustified.

-- For sure (not gonna@say.now), April 29, 2000.

Consumer, don't you think you're being rather bossy and even slightly bitchy? It seems weird to INSIST, even DEMAND, that someone "start a thread right now to apologize!!".

I thought we all agreed. No deletions.

-- (*@*.*), April 29, 2000.

To All,

Thanks again for your support.Sadie has had a rough couple of days as her brain pressure is not stable.

While I believe retards posts to be tasteless I request that OTFR re- post them as to not bring censorship to the forefront of the initial topic(Sadies life),I think everyone knows where I stand on that one(censorship).This should appeaze everyone and maintain the boards integrity.

I will give the info at a later date when some internet wacko cannot exploit a tragic situation with who knows what kind of demented acts.If you do not believe me thats fine I don't care,you will just have to forget about it and jab someone else.

So please,OTFR,reinstate the deleted posts and this will become a non- issue.

Again,thanks to all for your prayers.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 29, 2000.

To Retard,

If you are in need of good pediatric brain specialist located in the south I will be more than happy to hand deliver you all the information,I hope this is not the case.

I'm sorry your posts were deleted and in all honesty if I had thought about it in my communication with OTFR I would have requested that we not go that route,and if you have been here for any length of time you would know that this is consistent with my thinking and philosophy.

If you choose to question my statements your attacks will fall on my deaf ears,as I will consider the source.

If anyone wants to know the status of Sadie please feel free to email me,it's a real addy,I will get back with you asap!

As a side note,

Many times I am approached by people in need of assistance,prayers or money sometimes sometimes they get what they requested,sometimes they don't.The point here is that the burden of fraud is with the offending party.If I give a woman in the street 50.00 because she says she is stranded and needs to get back home and she has 3 kids with her,if she is lying the (sin) falls on her,I'm doing to do the right thing,by virtue of my actions.

It is often not easy to detect a scam,but at some point you have to agree with yourself to possibly being wrong and hope that your offering is being taken as administered as it intended.That is all you can do.

I hope this totally solves this situation.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 29, 2000.

capnfun:

My thoughts and prayers are still with you and yours. I had not weighed in on the issue of the deletes as I had not yet decided how I felt-I was leaning toward having a problem with the deletions.

But you are right-this is your pain, and since you have requested the posts be undeleted, then that should be done. It DOES become a non- issue if they are put back up.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 29, 2000.

Retard, I have explained to you my reasons on the "Urgent Request" thread. I wanted to make clear that this one particular thread belonged to Cap, to recieve the support and prayers he was requesting. I chose to do this out of decency for a fellow human and netuser. I have not prevented you nor deleted anything else you've posted about this on several different threads, including this one. On that "Urgent" thread, you and everyone else were warned not to continue posting such tasteless posts.

Expressing sorrow and making a request for support and prayers is NOT something to DEBATE. As the owner of this forum, I made the decision that Capnfun's request was legitimate. I did not ask for your opinion wether it was or not, and you did not have to impose it on me or anyone. This particular thread has nothing to do with censorship and everthing to do with human decency. And note also that I am not asking for your opinion on what is decent or not. You are free to start your own forum if you do not agree with my standards of compassion and decency in cases such as this. I consider myself very tolerant, but like any human being I'll draw the line somewhere.

I also have great reservation and concerns for anyone posting real phone numbers, addresses and other such data pertaining to one's private life on public forums. I discourage everyone to do so, and I discouraged Capnfun from doing so in a private email I sent him. His friend and family, as well as the hospital staff, have enough stress as it is without having to worry about some anonymous skeptical internet posters.

Capnfun, I appreciate your efforts and restraint, but even if it was possible for me to repost what I have deleted from Retard, I would not. I have deleted 5 or 6 more posts after the warning, which I did not cut/paste into the "deleted thread" section.

UNCENSORED IS NOT EQUAL TO ANARCHY I have some minimum standards that I have posted in the About section which I will inforce. There are other case by case basis deletions which I do that are to ensure that this forum remains functional, e.g., disruptive spamming by trolls, and pure malicious acts to attract vendals to this forum or to encourage vendalsism on other forums.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 29, 2000.

OTFR:

While you obviously have only the best of intentions, we know what is said to be paved with them. I can only hope you don't have too many hot buttons like this. At least you've made it clear what thoughts we aren't allowed to express here. The distinction between "uncensored" and "only a little bit censored but for GOOD REASONS, honest" is qualitative, not quantitative. Very scary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 2000.

**To A @:

I can say yes I was coming off as bitchy/bossy, My apolgies. Sincerely.

I allowed this to be real 'personal' with me. Again, I apologize and you are Correct, I have no right to demand/insist for an apology.

Capn, thanks for the email. I do understand, and You are QUITE a lets say "Decent" beyond all belief person. Having said this to you, I will sit down now and behave. (Smile) I will also let it be known, it was IMHO your call.

OTFR, in spite of the fact you are taking/getting heat, I appreciate your compassion. You are correct, it is really not about censorship, per se, but compassion.

Capn did make the request to undelete. You said you wont, that is your call. I see where this is going, and do not wish it to get uglier.

I am asking for a "Truce", and will hereby agree to keep my mouth off of tard.

FWIW, I do not see this as in comparison to the Old TB, I have stated before I am all for uncensorhip, but come now, at times, we need to respect and have compassion dont we?

Having been guilty of not having respect before, I have apologized.

Capn, I am still praying.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Flint, I understand what you're afraid of, which is the exact same thing that made ME start this very forum.

There's nothing else I can say, other than there is no free standing, completely unmoderated forum on the internet. I dare you to find one. Each forum is owned and operated by at least one person who sets up the criteria for that forum. The government of United States of America, who has made free speech a model to follow around the world, itself has sets of standards.

If I let everyone do as they pleased with this forum, there would not be a forum to post to eventually.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 29, 2000.

Sounds familiar...

-- (heard it @lready.com), April 30, 2000.

Sieg Heil!

-- (......@...........), April 30, 2000.

Flint,

Please explain "qualitative","quantitative"and"Very scary".

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 30, 2000.

Old,

I did not see your post that says "This one particular thread belongs to Cap." I did not understand that posts that did not agree with Cap would be deleted, since the thread belonged to him.

I would not have posted if I had seen your warning.

Can anyone here request that a particular thread belongs to him, and that no dissent is allowed?

--------------- consumer,

Sure, I'll apologize if I caused hurt. That wasn't the intent.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 30, 2000.

I too would like to see this incident put to rest but there is one lingering aspect that I should like to table. First, to the OTFR I say a million thanks for giving us this great place to gather. I was on the old TB2000 almost from the beginning under a different handle. The one thing I could plainly see was how a clique formed over a period of time and at the end we all know what happened. Thats how the deletions started. Someone outside of the inner circle or someone with an opposing view would get jumped on. Typically it would start out as sysops please delete or some such whining. Anyone that dared to question one of the protected ones was deleted on site. This incident gives me the same kind of ominous feeling.

Im still having a problem understanding why retards posts were deleted. I didnt personally like what he said but so what? Capnfun is really just like the rest of us..a made-up cyber persona. I was touched by his request but that doesnt mean everybody had to be. And I have no problem with anybody questioning the validity of his story. Isnt that what this board is all about? Who or what should be above that basic tenet? Prayer requests may be best taken to a more appropriate site to avoid these types of sensitivities. The bothersome part of this situation is how a few treated capnfun as someone more important than retard. Thats what destroyed the old place so please lets not let that happen here.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 30, 2000.

Please, if I am ever seriously ill, or in a bad crash, or if I die and Mrs D tells the board about it, let ALL of the insults and nasty replies stand. I think that those who dislike me should be allowed to say what they wish, even if it hurts my feelings. (impossible, since I have none) I say let them dance on my grave, at least they are getting exercise.

Thank you.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

Capnfun:

Good questions. The notion of censorship is an absolute -- a forum is either censored or it is not. This is qualitative. Kinda like being pregnant. Quantitative in this context applies to a censored forum to begin with, referring to just how much censorship is applied. Before it died, the old TB2K forum was quite heavily censored, and the censors' new gated community has carried this to a quantitative extent where discussion is clearly and narrowly channeled.

Now, this does raise the issue of censorship vs. management, and this is admittedly less than crystal clear. It raises procedural issues, in the sense that some voices may try to silence others, or make the forum difficult for others to use. So (as an example) we need a fairly clear and useful definition of spamming, along with a policy to handle it.

If someone is submitting multiple copies of the same thread, should the moderator ignore this (IMO, probably not), or delete all but a single copy of identical posts (better IMO, but not easy if different people have responded differently to multiple copies, and you wish to retain all replies), or delete EVERY copy (bad IMO, since I don't feel ANY post deserves to be "disappeared" totally), or as was the case on TB2K, delete not only every copy but every subsequent post by that person wherever found (IMO, very very bad).

Similarly, we've had some cases where people submit the same (usually long) post to multiple threads. This is a judgment call, I think. Threads tend to wander off the original topic, and sometimes dovetail with other threads. If a post clearly applies to the current topic on two different threads (and isn't too long), it's often procedurally better to repeat it than provide a link to a LONG thread most of which is about something else anyway. I admit *I* was annoyed by the long post advocating not paying any taxes that showed up a couple dozen times, but my feeling is that we can live with such an abuse.

What's scary is the practice of deleting posts not procedurally but on the basis of content offensive to the moderator. Hey, we're all offended by *something*. Also scary is the practice of targeting a particular author and deleting everything that author says, even if the content is both topical and different each time.

Apparently, retard's posts were deleted on the grounds that they were "tasteless". They were viewed as being in violation of one single person's definition of "personal compassion". And THAT isn't even close to a useful guideline for the rest of us, even those of us who might agree that it's OK for our moderator to set up a forum called "uncensored" right in the title, and then censor to taste (although those who agree now have their own venue).

The *necessary* implication of an uncensored forum is that we all agree to be exposed to statements and opinions we dislike or disapprove, and live with it. The temptation for the moderator to remove posts (or people) she really really doesn't like is quite strong, and the strength of the forum is closely tied to her ability to resist this temptation -- or at least to learn from her mistakes. I won't comment on retard's input, but I WILL express very strong concern about OTFR's unwillingness to recognize clear error.

I can skip what offends me if I choose. I can level strong criticism at it if I choose. So can everyone else -- PROVIDED we're permitted to see it and react as we see fit in the first place. If we're not allowed to see it at all because of *someone else's taste*, we're definitely headed in the wrong direction. If the "censor to taste" person insists this is OK, we're in deep trouble.

Remember "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? We now have a case of "I may disagree with what you say, in which case I won't let you say it and there's nothing you can do about it."

So be careful, Capnfun. DON'T say anything "tasteless", whatever that means today to someone you don't know. You now know what will happen to you otherwise!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

Thank you for your lecture, Flint.

It is very easy for you to pontificate from your position. I pontificated about censorship much the way you have, on the old TB2K, so I know of what I speak.

My actions as administrator speak for themselves. No one has been banned from me, or targeted in particular as someone to ignore since I started this forum. I have explained to Retard and everyone in my post above as clearly as I could, my decisions and actions. I have NOT censored Retard on this forum. He has been welcomed to express his views about Cap's request on many different threads. I have explained my decision on the "Urgent" thread in question, so there was no "wondering of what the criteria is".

You forgot to mention a few points in regards to this forum and why it was called "uncensored".

1. As clearly explained in the About section, it was started in response to Ed Yourdon closing Timebomb2000 on Lusenet and heavily censoring the new forum on EZboard. The "uncensored" part clearly refers to Y2K related ideas, news and discussions. If I had wanted it any other way, I would have called it Uncensored Discussion Forum or some such.

2. This forum was never intended to be a free for all, anarchist forum. Again as stated in the About section, posting of materials which I object to, such as pornography, is subject to my moderation. This clearly defines this forum as "moderated".

3. I am the only moderator and administrator. You don't have to deal with 6 or 8 individuals to guess at what is appropriate or allowed. By now, everyone should have a reasonable idea of my standards, and if anyone is unsure if something should be posted, that person always has the option to write me via email. Retard for example, could have written me asking me why I deleted the posts on THAT ONE PARTICULAR THREAD (after my explanation and warning).

Flint, you use this forum quite extensively, as shown by the number of posts under your name in the statistics. Since you have such strong feelings about the way I administer and moderate this forum, perhaps you could make yourself useful and sketch a FAQ about the policies and standards of this forum. You could start by going back to every replies I have written regarding this forum and my views on free speech, moderation and the purpose of this forum, write a detailed and unambiguous FAQ, and submit it for my approval via email. I feel I get a lot of criticisms from discontented people who don't have the stress to make hard decisions as moderator to please everyone on a forum where NO ONE EVER AGREES (which in itself proves that free speech is alive and well here), nor have to log on several times a day to make sure this forum is still functioning as it should.

Many of you invest too much emotion on this forum and Ed Yourdon's by association of subjects. I have gradually dissociated myself from any "click" or friendship with anyone since after the roll over. For quite a while, whatever correspondence I have via private emails with anyone are purely business via my OTFR account. No one in particular has more weight or influence on my policies and decisions.

From my vantage point, I see pure vandalism on this forum, and what can be termed as terrorists attacks. Nothing so obvious as what LL did, but they are attempts at discrediting and/or bringing down this forum nonetheless. My goal is to maintain free flowing discussions.

I will concede that this particular incident with Capnfun has been a learning experience for me, and I hope for all of you as well. Please take note of this incident Flint if you decide to go ahead and write a FAQ. To discourage requests of compassion and support on this forum, where one stands to be hurt and attacked. Support and free speech, it seems, are incompatible.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

Tough subject, this.

The determinant of the limits of free speech, in society as a whole, is the potential for harm to another as a result of said speech. Inciting to riot is a limit; another would be hate speech which leads to murder or other mayhem. I am sure, if someone is willing, we could get quite an expose on the limits of free speech as defined by the courts.

On one hand I can see OTBF's point-in a strict reading of the about section, the limits ARE there. It is our mistake if we thought this would be a COMPLETELY uncensored forum. On the other hand, I can see Flint's point to a degree; I am not so sure that we can determine retard's posts would have caused harm to capnfun or anybody else. It is a very gray and very difficult area.

I believe that since retard was allowed to express his view on other threads, this is a moot point. I have no idea what his motive was in doing so; capnfun is not a stranger and I would never think he was trolling. That is the essence of this-Retard's point leads to the conclusion that the capn was trolling.

I have never seen him troll, and I do not know why he would start.

One thing I disagree with is OTBF's statement that so people spend too much emotion. Like any other poster, I am going to call him/her to task on this. Sure sounds like a wholesale judgement to me. I call anyone on this kind of statement. What is too much emotion? Why bother to make a commentary on this? I understand otbr is under fire, and in those kind of situations it may be more difficult to remain objective, but it is still wrong to make this wholesale judgement, in my opinion.

Otherwise, I think otbr has done a great job with this forum and I for one am grateful it is here. I will not be moving to the forum which came up this weekend, per se.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 30, 2000.

OTFR,

I'm really sorry for all of this...I mean that.

FS,

I apologized to you also on another thread, did you see it?

FWIW, I wont be 'attending' either.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

The only posts deleted were on that thread.

None of my posts elsewhere have been deleted.

No, I don't feel discriminated against.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 30, 2000.

Consumer:

Saw it. Thanks

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 30, 2000.

Flint,

Thanks for the definitions.

It is really not for me to be careful,as I stated that I thought it was in bad taste and that was all,never once did I even remotely make a request for a deletion,the only request I ever made was for un- deletion.My views on censorship are well known and documented and I will stand by them,even at my expense.Never have I suggested that I am above anyone or deserving of special treatment and would never put myself in such a lofty position.

Unk,

Ditto for doin' a jig on the ol' grave,hell I'd make mine a party.(chucklin')Iv'e allready bought the 1st couple of rounds.

OTFR,

I am sorry such a small request has turned into such a large issue,I can only hope that we have learned something.

Retard,

No apologies needed,you never hurt me.I did resent the fact that you would question my intent and character,I can only assume that you are not familiar with my posts and took my handle to be of a pranksterish nature."capnfun" is a moniker I have held for many years because of my ability to keep on smilin' and my forte to have a great time,not to be a punk prankster.

My only intent was to possibly help a little girl that I am otherwise powerless to help.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 30, 2000.

Amen...

-- My God (Somebodys@God.com), May 03, 2000.

why? i tell why. http://www.paralito.com

-- george (george@paralito.com), January 22, 2002.

In the words of George Orwell, "Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the freedom to tell others that which they do not want to hear", in other words, joyous blatant insensitivity. And certainly to politely check for chain letter hoaxes!

But for a more general demarcation of moderation from censorship: http://www.foolquest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_II_moderation.htm

-- Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com), November 19, 2002.