Another Voice Of Reason Is Silenced

[cruzer]

I've been busy and missed the excitement, could someone tell me what specific rule was broken so I might not be led down that negative path or group the wrong letters that may or may not be judged by an individual and I may at that time at the discretion of said individual that may not have ever appreciated my opinions be banned from this fountain of knowledge not knowing were that banning may lead me in these trying times in the expedite industry. Poor Dougtravels, how is he to survive with out the support and positive input he has grown so accustom to here on EO by EO and its friendly members,POOR,POOR Doug.....

 

[LDB]

Suggesting to a specific individual they should die as part of a vulgar phrase, whether spelled out fully which would never get through the website software that censors certain words and phrases or in an abbrieviated form to get around that software would be a bad idea. That's what Doug did. There really is absolutely no other explanation but for those who seem so distraught I conceded the statitically insignifigant possibility to help them come to terms with the fact that Doug intentionally did something knowing it could cause problems.

It's really interesting how this is turning into a casebook study of liberalism. Don't hold the individual responsible for what they do. Don't impose consequences on the individual for their personal actions. Make the rules and be sure to enforce the rules but only if they don't affect the individual. It's ok to say violators will be banned because "violators" is a generic term but when it boils down to any specific individual being held accountable for their own personal actions that's no good. Liberalism at it's finest.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I can't understand why the good membership is trying so hard to 2nd guess Dreamer and Lawrence so much....ONLY they can ban....Doug broke a serious rule...
Did your kids break a rule?
Did you not punish them when they did?

It is like your saying lets have rules but when broke lets not enforce them....

You are all whinning about illegals and how we should enforce the rules...or do you think they should stay?

 

[letzrockexpress]

Suggesting to a specific individual they should die as part of a vulgar phrase, whether spelled out fully which would never get through the website software that censors certain words and phrases or in an abbrieviated form to get around that software would be a bad idea. That's what Doug did. There really is absolutely no other explanation but for those who seem so distraught I conceded the statitically insignifigant possibility to help them come to terms with the fact that Doug intentionally did something knowing it could cause problems.

It's really interesting how this is turning into a casebook study of liberalism. Don't hold the individual responsible for what they do. Don't impose consequences on the individual for their personal actions. Make the rules and be sure to enforce the rules but only if they don't affect the individual. It's ok to say violators will be banned because "violators" is a generic term but when it boils down to any specific individual being held accountable for their own personal actions that's no good. Liberalism at it's finest.

Where I come from that isn't at all liberalism. It's called standing up for due process. If you were to take the time to read about the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you might learn something about it. It's funny how when you and your cronies can't find any other avenue to make a point you defer to calling any individual that isn't on the same page as you a liberal. Aside from the fact liberalism has nothing to do with this issue, I don't believe you even know the meaning of the term, and for the record, not that it matters, I am not one of them.

Now, can you tell me what the acronym for the following expression would be?

"Every Showman Acts Differently My Friend"

I rest my case.

 

[Pilgrim]

Considering all the verbal wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the expulsion the Dougster perhaps his aggreived fan club should consider the following: their sympathy is misplaced because apparently he didn't hold their virtual friendship or membership in this website in the same esteem as they seemingly do for him. If he had placed a reasonable value on the PRIVILEDGE of participating in discussions with both allies and adversaries alike, he would have played by the rules - IT WAS HIS CHOICE TO IGNORE THEM. I agree with a previous post by Turtle stating he intentionally crossed the line; perhaps he wanted to see if he could get away with it, perhaps he didn't care about the consequences. The point is that the vast majority of us know to keep our comments civil as a condition of continued membership. There's no reason to make exemptions for those who can't or won't.

 

[letzrockexpress]

....Doug broke a serious rule...

That has not at all been proven. Read post #104. Show me PROOF Doug did something wrong. I don't believe you can.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I can't....BUT the fact that Lawrence or Dreamer did see it....should suffice. It is not a mod decision....obviously you don't trust Dreamers or Lawrences' judgment.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion...but bottomline is..

NO cares about opinion....it is a done deal....

 

[letzrockexpress]

Considering all the verbal wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the expulsion the Dougster perhaps his aggreived fan club should consider the following: their sympathy is misplaced because apparently he didn't hold their virtual friendship or membership in this website in the same esteem as they seemingly do for him. If he had placed a reasonable value on the PRIVILEDGE of participating in discussions with both allies and adversaries alike, he would have played by the rules - IT WAS HIS CHOICE TO IGNORE THEM. I agree with a previous post by Turtle stating he intentionally crossed the line; perhaps he wanted to see if he could get away with it, perhaps he didn't care about the consequences. The point is that the vast majority of us know to keep our comments civil as a condition of continued membership. There's no reason to make exemptions for those who can't or won't.

Whether or not Mr. Travels consulted with anyone prior to making a post is nether here nor there. Once again I ask: WHAT RULE DID HE BREAK? WHAT PROOF IS THERE HE BROKE ANY RULE? SHOW IT TO ALL OF US!!!!!

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Whether or not Mr. Travels consulted with anyone prior to making a post is nether here nor there. Once again I ask: WHAT RULE DID HE BREAK? WHAT PROOF IS THERE HE BROKE ANY RULE? SHOW IT TO ALL OF US!!!!!

They don't have to prove anything to anyone....
The post was taken down ....Answer the question....

Do you believe Dreamer a liar and it didn't happen???

 

[letzrockexpress]

I can't....BUT the fact that Lawrence or Dreamer did see it....should suffice. It is not a mod decision....obviously you don't trust Dreamers or Lawrences' judgment.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority" Benjamin Franklin

 

[letzrockexpress]

They don't have to prove anything to anyone....
The post was taken down ....Answer the question....

Do you believe Dreamer a liar and it didn't happen???

I do not think they thought it through. I refer you again to post #104. You are right. They do not have to prove anything to anyone. When the time comes, and it likely will, that a mistake is made against you or some other innocent victim, don't cry about it....That's "just the way it is"

 

[Pilgrim]

Whether or not Mr. Travels consulted with anyone prior to making a post is nether here nor there. Once again I ask: WHAT RULE DID HE BREAK? WHAT PROOF IS THERE HE BROKE ANY RULE? SHOW IT TO ALL OF US!!!!!

"Consulted with anyone"?? Where did that come from? At any rate, this site is a private enterprise where membership is required to participate. The administrators make the rules and enforce them - they don't have to show us anything. If we don't like the rules we can take our ball and go play in some other yard.

 

[wellarmed]

I think you mean to play in this yard don't bring your balls.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I do not think they thought it through. I refer you again to post #104. You are right. They do not have to prove anything to anyone. When the time comes, and it likely will, that a mistake is made against you or some other innocent victim, don't cry about it....That's "just the way it is"

Rock...If and when that time comes....I'll get what I deserve or maybe I'll still get it regardless.....unlike you I trust Dreamer and Lawrence to make the right decision....
If I get banned for a questionable act I sure won't expect anyone to defend me either....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority" Benjamin Franklin

it doesn't say just how long one questions it....?

You got the answer....

BTW...why would you want to see the post if you obviously know whats in it????

 

[letzrockexpress]

Rock...If and when that time comes....I'll get what I deserve or maybe I'll still get it regardless.....unlike you I trust Dreamer and Lawrence to make the right decision....
If I get banned for a questionable act I sure won't expect anyone to defend me either....

Maybe Canada was built on such subserviance, I don't know. Maybe that is where you get it, I don't know. What I can tell you is that even though this is a private forum, it would be nothing without the members. If the members are routinely silenced for issues that are unsubstantiated, in a forum where disent is the name of the game, Free thought is stifled, if not totally stymied.

 

[letzrockexpress]

BTW...why would you want to see the post if you obviously know whats in it????

Uh, I think the answer is in your question....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Maybe Canada was built on such subserviance, I don't know. Maybe that is where you get it, I don't know. What I can tell you is that even though this is a private forum, it would be nothing without the members. If the members are routinely silenced for issues that are unsubstantiated, in a forum where disent is the name of the game, Free thought is stifled, if not totally stymied.

It has nothing to do with subserviance..it has alot to do that the Admin made a decision...they banned Doug. Now you have questioned that decision and you know the reason....you don't agree and that is fine. All this add on discussion is not going to change the judges decision.....Bottomline..you had your say, voiced your dissenting opinion and that should be it....Your rights as a member has been quantified.

 

[letzrockexpress]

It has nothing to do with subserviance..it has alot to do that the Admin made a decision...they banned Doug. Now you have questioned that decision and you know the reason....you don't agree and that is fine. All this add on discussion is not going to change the judges decision.....Bottomline..you had your say, voiced your dissenting opinion and that should be it....Your rights as a member has been quantified.

It's over when I say it's over...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

It's over when I say it's over...

Rock don't be showing me that angry face.*L*...

We've had a good discussion, better level headed words then you'll get with others in here...we've both been reasonable without resorting to cussing and belittling each other....lets keep it that way...I am not your enemy...