FAO freeyourself (re davidt bashing)

  • Thread starter Trydeletingmypostsnowb*tch
  • Start date
T

Trydeletingmypostsnowb*tch

Guest
freeyourself you have NO CLUE about how this site is run, do you? You profess to be ultra-mature but squeal, whine and fight like a spoiled baby at every opportunity. No, I am not broken / Quentin. broken / Quentin isn't the only one who finds you ridiculous. Why do you have an automatic mark down to -1 on the newsboards? Because the moderators find you boorish and your posts of little merit, and you whine and shout obscenities at any perceived slight. There is no set moderator on the main boards, everyone gets a go every so often (unless they have a sum total of negative moderation points, or 'karma'). Quentin and broken both have negative karma so they are certainly not moderating you down. It is the community at large, many people. Many people think your comments are flamebait, or trollish.

What has prompted me to launch this protest against you is your ill-advised words against davidt.

There are three flaws in your arguments against him.

Firstly, davidt is NOT responsible for the comments posted on this site. His site clearly states that the comments are owned by whoever posts them. THIS IS A DISCLAIMER THAT HAS LEGAL FORCE. When Morrissey's people were threatening to have this site closed down because of comments posted here by roadies who claimed Morrissey had not paid them in full, it was established that the law is on davidt's side - it emerged that there had been a legal precedent in the US, where Morrissey-solo is based, where people tried to bring a case against the site ebay for comments that had appeared on it. ebay claimed that the comments were owned by people who posted them, and so they were not responsible. The Judge agreed and this created a legal precedent. This was the advice that davidt received from posters here. And what do you know, Morrissey's people backed off, because they hadn't a leg to stand on. I guess you wouldn't know that because you're new here. Funny that, because you throw your (considerable) weight around as if you own the place.

Secondly, this is a place where we have freedom of speech, get used to it, davidt obviously (by what he permits posted here) wants to keep it that way and I say good luck to him. Obviously there are occasionally offensive comments because of this lack of direct moderation, but hey, if you can't deal with it, then LEAVE. A lot of us can and a lot of us are grateful that this is a forum where freedom of speech is possible. THat is something valuable. You don't have to agree with what is posted. If someone posts that Morrissey has AIDS, big f***ing deal. It'll get about 10 posts saying how ridiculous that suggestion is (as Quentin's post did). The best way to fight bullshit is to confront it, word for word, not just silence the person saying it. Plus, if we start banning people from posting, who is to say who we should ban? Fascists? Gays perhaps? Women? White men? Any selection criteria (apart from banning those who attempt to destroy the forum itself through hacking or spamming) is essentially arbitray.

Thirdly, you should think twice, no think three times, before you EVER start criticising davidt's policy. He hosts this site, one of the best fansites on the internet, in fact I'd go as far as to say THE best, where thousands of people come and enjoy what's on offer every day. You haven't paid a bean for this, the least you could do is show a little cocking respect for the way the man chooses to run his website.

In conclusion, if you are offended by what users post here to the extent that you feel the need to carp on about it and criticise the site owner, F*CK OFF TO MORRISSEYMUSIC.COM . Or out of here, at any rate.

And yes, I am 'Mozfan'. And no, I am not broken. Someone registered my username and deleted my posts. To them I say 'F*CK YOU, FASCIST' - here I am posting, can't stop me now. You'd like to, but you can't. We enjoy free speech here and to those that want to curtail that, get bent.
 
Do I really have to answer this load of droning old shite?? I know for a FACT this clown is Broken..
 
You won't answer because you can't. You can't even defend your own actions.

You're either too blind or too stupid. Or too much of a TROLL (as labelled by the Morrissey-solo community at large, hence your automatic -1 posting score).

I don't see how you can know for a 'fact' that I am Quentin. How do you know that for a 'fact'? I am not Quentin or broken. If you know it for such a 'fact', prove it.

Even if I was, funnily enough, it wouldn't matter. My points are valid ones whoever I am:-
1. davidt is in no danger of being 'shut down' AT ALL.
2. freedom of speech is a good thing in internet forums and people can always fight back against bullshit, people with enough intelligence can evaluate arguments for and against, e.g. 'Morrissey has AIDS'. If it's bullshit, people will know.
3. You whine, bitch, complain and fight everyone and everything including the site's owner. And you obsessively call everyone 'broken' or 'Quentin'.
4. davidt runs a great free site and if you don't like it THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES, GO TO ANOTHER SITE. Constructive criticism is one thing but the tone of voice with which you criticise davidt is quite uncalled for, plus anyone with a bit of time under their belt browsing this site would know davidt is committed to his principles of maintaining a free forum (to the point of being threatened with legal action from hot-shot laywers).
 
Re: You won't answer because you can't. You can't even defend your own actions.

> You're either too blind or too stupid. Or too much of a TROLL (as labelled
> by the Morrissey-solo community at large, hence your automatic -1 posting
> score).

> I don't see how you can know for a 'fact' that I am Quentin. How do you
> know that for a 'fact'? I am not Quentin or broken. If you know it for
> such a 'fact', prove it.

> Even if I was, funnily enough, it wouldn't matter. My points are valid
> ones whoever I am:-
> 1. davidt is in no danger of being 'shut down' AT ALL.
> 2. freedom of speech is a good thing in internet forums and people can
> always fight back against bullshit, people with enough intelligence can
> evaluate arguments for and against, e.g. 'Morrissey has AIDS'. If it's
> bullshit, people will know.
> 3. You whine, bitch, complain and fight everyone and everything including
> the site's owner. And you obsessively call everyone 'broken' or 'Quentin'.
> 4. davidt runs a great free site and if you don't like it THERE ARE
> ALTERNATIVES, GO TO ANOTHER SITE. Constructive criticism is one thing but
> the tone of voice with which you criticise davidt is quite uncalled for,
> plus anyone with a bit of time under their belt browsing this site would
> know davidt is committed to his principles of maintaining a free forum (to
> the point of being threatened with legal action from hot-shot laywers).
I'm sorry but wasnt freeyourself just expressing his opinion and making use of the free speech that you are advocating or am I completely stupid?
 
Re: You won't answer because you can't. You can't even defend your own actions.

> I'm sorry but wasnt freeyourself just expressing his opinion and making
> use of the free speech that you are advocating or am I completely stupid?

He can express his opinion. And I can criticise it, and make it look stupid if I want to and am able (which I evidently am). Just like those people who (rightly) criticised Quentin's shameful post about Morrissey having AIDs, they were able to show that Quentin was just bullshitting, he had no evidence to back up his claims.

I don't object to freeyourself posting, it's his right to post. It's my right to post back. If he says things that are blatant falsehoods / foolish comments, like 'davidt is in danger of having his site shut down' then I can come in and set him straight - it's just a FACT that that is not the case. There is a much-discussed legal precedent in the US that means, barring a change in the law (and no relevant legislation is pending as far as I know) that davidt is not in danger of being shut down.

See what I mean? That's freedom of speech. The freedom to post whatever you like, sure, but be ready to have others correct you on it. If he can't defend his actions, that casts a bad light on him (in the eyes of people reading the posts). They are the ones that judge which side is right, after evaluating the arguments presented for and against. I've quite categorically showed that freeyourself is gravely mistaken in this case. Anyone who was around for the whole 'Morrissey's lawyers threaten Moz-solo' thing will recall what was established at the time.
 
THE TRUTH ABOUT DAVID T

No, I am not broken / Quentin. broken / Quentin
> isn't the only one who finds you ridiculous. Why do you have an automatic
> mark down to -1 on the newsboards?

Hmm...It's odd you should mention that, as during another tedious dispute with you on the Article Comments boards today (you posted anonymously, of course, but the pompous & idiotic content of your posts always gives you away) I mentioned that very point at some length.
Yes, I am moderated to -1 from the first second I post, before the mods have even read my post! I do find that odd, but as I have no interest in presiding over sorry no-life twats like you on this site, it really is immaterial to me.

Irrespective of "how much I know about how this site is run", as I am supposed to get a mod point for being a logged in member, thus starting out with a score of 1, is it really so strange that I would question the fact that I am given -1, regardless of the content of my post?

> What has prompted me to launch this protest against you is your
> ill-advised words against davidt.

"Ill-advised" words against David T??

Firstly, I'll say what the f*** I like.

Secondly, I may be relatively new to the Article Comments / Discussion Boards, but I have been coming to the site for 4/5 years, so I did see the Cease & Desist Order & the resulting furore at the time.

As to who backed down & where everyone stands regarding the Law, i really couldn't give a rat's arse.

If you think it's OK for people to post, on what is undoubtedly the most widely read fansite about Morrissey, that he has AIDS or that Alain is a Paranoid Schizophrenic, then I suggest you re-examine your moral values.

As it's virtually impossible to ban anyone from posting on a site like this, I do think it's acceptable, if only as a courtesy to Morrissey, to log the IP Address of the kind of low-life degenerate who would make such a post, & stop them using that computer in future to access the site.

I guess you wouldn't know that because
> you're new here. Funny that, because you throw your (considerable) weight
> around as if you own the place.

Once again you give your spiteful self away Broken, as only you seem to have such a bizarre preoccupation with my weight.

If indeed you are not Broken, who has already declined a similar invitation on account of his extreme cowardice, then maybe you would be prepared to meet me in the 'Real' World & repeat some of your ill-conceived remarks to my face?

> Secondly, this is a place where we have freedom of speech, get used to it,
> davidt obviously (by what he permits posted here) wants to keep it that
> way and I say good luck to him. Obviously there are occasionally offensive
> comments because of this lack of direct moderation, but hey, if you can't
> deal with it, then LEAVE.

Has it not become patently obvious to everyone by now that I am in favour of a virtually unregulated site? I value my right to express myself in a robust fashion if I consider it warranted.

But if things about someone's personal life are being posted, pictures, email addresses, home addresses etc. & so forth, without their express permission, or if malicious lies are posted about people, be they other site users, Band members or Morrissey himself, then this should be regulated out of the system, as it's both prurient & intrusive & leaves someone open to all manner of abuse.

> Thirdly, you should think twice, no think three times, before you EVER
> start criticising davidt's policy. He hosts this site, one of the best
> fansites on the internet, in fact I'd go as far as to say THE best, where
> thousands of people come and enjoy what's on offer every day. You haven't
> paid a bean for this, the least you could do is show a little cocking
> respect for the way the man chooses to run his website.

While I appreciate the time & effort David T has put into this site in the past, I can't help thinking that the encounter with Morrissey's Legal Team left him a lot more bruised than he would care to admit.

Bang went his privileged access to information regarding Morrissey's planned activities, & he now has to scan the Net like the rest of us to find out what's in the pipeline. indeed, he often has to wait for one of us to inform him about TV appearances etc & just about everything else that makes it's way to the Articles section on this site.

No more Backstage Passes either, in fact, he's not welcome around Morrissey at all, certainly not with anything like the ease he found in the past.

All this may have made him somewhat bitter & disillusioned & he may enjoy & even contribute to the rumour mongering that is allowed to go on unchecked on, after all, what is his site.

He updates the site literally several times a day & the server is IN HIS HOUSE. he knows everyones IP Address & where everything comes from....

So think about it, he devotes his whole life to Moz & the site & then he gets summarily excommunicated.

Via fax no less!!

All that time effort & MONEY & what's he got? not a thing. Moz won't even acknowledge him at shows. It HAS to hurt.

So maybe there is a personal vendetta going on here, but it's got nothing to do with an insignificant nobody like you 'Mozfan', or whatever the hell your name is.

It has nothing to do with me either, i'm pleased to say.

No, from being on the Guest List for shows, getting faxes from Moz himself from time to time & even appearing on the sleevenotes of The Best of Morrissey, you let rumours get posted & BAM, you're excommunicated. No Guestlist, No Faxes, A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER!!!

No my friend, you are nobody's nothing & this is much bigger than our petty squabble.
 
You can shut the f*** up now gimp boy, i've answered your absurd post!
 
Are you still here?

> He can express his opinion. And I can criticise it, and make it look
> stupid if I want to and am able (which I evidently am).

In your dreams you ridiculous fool

, like 'davidt is in danger of having his site shut down'
> then I can come in and set him straight

No pun intended I suspect?

I've dealt with your sorry arse many times on this site & I've just done so again.

> See what I mean? That's freedom of speech. The freedom to post whatever
> you like, sure, but be ready to have others correct you on it. If he can't
> defend his actions, that casts a bad light on him (in the eyes of people
> reading the posts). They are the ones that judge which side is right,
> after evaluating the arguments presented for and against.

Then let them judge me (that's your cue to f*** right off 'giant' / broken, crawl back under your rock you pathetic twat)

But an intellectual pigmy like you will never "make me look stupid", "set me straight" or "correct" me on anything.
 
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT DAVID T

> Irrespective of "how much I know about how this site is run", as
> I am supposed to get a mod point for being a logged in member, thus
> starting out with a score of 1, is it really so strange that I would
> question the fact that I am given -1, regardless of the content of my
> post?

It's in the site rules. Anyone who has been modded down a certain number of times gets an automatic score of -1 attached to their posts. This reflects the fact that their posts are usually inflammatory / redundant / offensive, so regular users who 'browse at a score of 0 or 1' (i.e. screen out comments with a score of -1) won't be bothered by them.

> "Ill-advised" words against David T??

Yeah, I mean having a go at him about how he runs his site. Stirring things up like this now is included.

> Firstly, I'll say what the f*** I like.

That's your right. You have freedom of speech here after all (though you'd like to take that away, then you couldn't say 'what the f*** you like', mr.nobody-pushes-me-around-fighting-talk).

> Secondly, I may be relatively new to the Article Comments / Discussion
> Boards, but I have been coming to the site for 4/5 years, so I did see the
> Cease & Desist Order & the resulting furore at the time.

> As to who backed down & where everyone stands regarding the Law, i
> really couldn't give a rat's arse.

Fair enough. But ignoring 'where everyone stands with the law' leads you to post ridiculous false comments, like saying davidt might get shut down, you were worried that 'he might get shut down' or so you said. So I said, fair enough, don't give a rat's arse about it, but don't be surprised to find yourself spouting blatant bullshit if you decide to ignore the salient facts - which in this case are legal. The possibility of davidt's 'being shut down' is dependent on the laws of the United States. And as it happens, the laws won't let him be shut down for what people post on this site.

> If you think it's OK for people to post, on what is undoubtedly the most
> widely read fansite about Morrissey, that he has AIDS or that Alain is a
> Paranoid Schizophrenic, then I suggest you re-examine your moral values.

No, YOU do. I respect the right to free speech in certain spheres. Obviously 'freedom of speech', as the old saying goes 'isn't freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded classroom'. However if a private individual wishes to maintain a secure space where people can speak freely, then I think it's right that he should be able to do so, and wrong that he should be forced to curtail that freedom. I also think it's right that there are libel laws that cover most public forums (although the fact there are places where even they don't apply in certain places, e.g. in the UK at Hyde Park Corner, is valuable).

It's not 'okay' that they post it, in that I would agree that Quentin, if he posted that thing about Moz having AIDS as a joke, was acting wrongly. However it would ALSO be wrong to censor his post on this forum, if it has been decided by the owner that they want it to be a forum where freedom of speech holds. Personally I am in favour of all such forums upholding free speech, as I think that false views are much better refuted by people putting up arguments against them, than by simply censoring the postings. People are basically rational and if you can demonstrate an argument is false, if the argument doesn't have sufficient evidence, people aren't stupid, they will see that. If there had been a rumour about Moz having AIDs going round and it was just deleted every time it was posted, people would get word of it, and maybe would start believing in it. But if we say, okay, here is the rumour, now, is there any evidence for it, what are the arguments for and against? Then it will quickly become apparent where the truth lies, or if there is any serious evidence for the claim. Allowing free speech also has the advantage that there is no censor, because all censors bring to the table their own moral values, etc. What if the censor was against homosexuality, or the right of people to freedom of worship, etc? It's a slippery slope. Everyone has their particular moral opinions / quirks.

> As it's virtually impossible to ban anyone from posting on a site like
> this, I do think it's acceptable, if only as a courtesy to Morrissey, to
> log the IP Address of the kind of low-life degenerate who would make such
> a post, & stop them using that computer in future to access the site.

In any case that wouldn't work. There are many programs you can use to get round IP bans easily. Ian / Moby used one for ages and in the end davidt just gave up trying to ban him.

> Once again you give your spiteful self away Broken, as only you seem to
> have such a bizarre preoccupation with my weight.
> If indeed you are not Broken, who has already declined a similar
> invitation on account of his extreme cowardice, then maybe you would be
> prepared to meet me in the 'Real' World & repeat some of your
> ill-conceived remarks to my face?

No, I won't agree to meet you in real life. You'd probably beat the shit out of me! So what, I'm not a fighter. Who gives a shit? You're very deluded if you think that whether you could beat someone in a physical fight is the be-all and end-all, some sort of badge of honour. I don't fight because I've got too much to lose, nice City job, nice car, nice house, etc, I'm happy with my life (without revealing more as I don't give out personal information on the net - a policy you may want to adopt in future given what happened between you and broken). Why risk all that for a pointless scrap with you? I'd have to be insane. Anyone can lose a fight in a second freeyourself, remember that. The other guy might have a knife, he gets his hand to it, whoops, there goes the contents of your stomach. Your life over in an instant. No, I'll just laugh quietly over my champagne thinking about a bunch of idiots beat the crap out of each other next time I'm out on the town - and leave the fighting to you.

> Has it not become patently obvious to everyone by now that I am in favour
> of a virtually unregulated site? I value my right to express myself in a
> robust fashion if I consider it warranted.
> But if things about someone's personal life are being posted, pictures,
> email addresses, home addresses etc. & so forth, without their express
> permission, or if malicious lies are posted about people, be they other
> site users, Band members or Morrissey himself, then this should be
> regulated out of the system, as it's both prurient & intrusive &
> leaves someone open to all manner of abuse.

Simple answer, be careful about who you give your details out to online. You would have thought that would be obvious enough in this day and age. You posted your pic on here, you (or so you say) gave broken enough information to find out you were 'Skinstorm' on Gaydar or whatever. Besides, what can he do with that information anyway? So he has a pic of you? So he has your Gaydar information? Big deal. He can't threaten your family or friends or you in person, the bigger thing to do would just be to ignore him. That doctored picture of you he posted was amusing for about 5 seconds, and then it was, so f***ing what? It obviously wasn't your *real* penis in that photo, so who cares?

> While I appreciate the time & effort David T has put into this site in
> the past, I can't help thinking that the encounter with Morrissey's Legal
> Team left him a lot more bruised than he would care to admit.
> Bang went his privileged access to information regarding Morrissey's
> planned activities, & he now has to scan the Net like the rest of us
> to find out what's in the pipeline. indeed, he often has to wait for one
> of us to inform him about TV appearances etc & just about everything
> else that makes it's way to the Articles section on this site.
> No more Backstage Passes either, in fact, he's not welcome around
> Morrissey at all, certainly not with anything like the ease he found in
> the past.
> All this may have made him somewhat bitter & disillusioned & he
> may enjoy & even contribute to the rumour mongering that is allowed to
> go on unchecked on, after all, what is his site.
> He updates the site literally several times a day & the server is IN
> HIS HOUSE. he knows everyones IP Address & where everything comes
> from....
> So think about it, he devotes his whole life to Moz & the site &
> then he gets summarily excommunicated.
> Via fax no less!!
> All that time effort & MONEY & what's he got? not a thing. Moz
> won't even acknowledge him at shows. It HAS to hurt.
> So maybe there is a personal vendetta going on here, but it's got nothing
> to do with an insignificant nobody like you 'Mozfan', or whatever the hell
> your name is.
> It has nothing to do with me either, i'm pleased to say.
> No, from being on the Guest List for shows, getting faxes from Moz himself
> from time to time & even appearing on the sleevenotes of The Best of
> Morrissey, you let rumours get posted & BAM, you're excommunicated. No
> Guestlist, No Faxes, A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER!!!
> No my friend, you are nobody's nothing & this is much bigger than our
> petty squabble.

You're entitled to your opinion. All I can say to that is that davidt seemed to permit freedom of speech before all that cease and desist stuff just as much as he does now. I don't notice a change in behaviour on his part. In particular, what LEAD to him being 'shut out' (if he has been) was the fact that he permitted a story that was defamatory to Moz. He would hardly have had a 'motive' for permitting it before he had been shut out now, would he?
 
Re: Are you still here?

> But an intellectual pigmy like you will never "make me look
> stupid", "set me straight" or "correct" me on
> anything.

Freeyourself, you posted that davidt was in danger of being shut down.

He isn't.

I posted that he isn't.

Ergo, I corrected you. Live with it.
 
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT DAVID T

Bitter? I'm sure he would be. Still that's a far cry from accusing him of deliberately posting shit or allowing shit to be posted as you seem to be doing here. There's nothing preventing David from shutting this site down completely, and based on the kind of utter crap that gets posted here on a daily basis I'd say he has the patience of a saint not to walk away from it all. I find it hard to believe that he maintains it just so some random idiot will post something rude about Moz and company in a feeble attempt at revenge.

You're walking on thin ice here. Someone smacked you so you start lashing out at anyone, even the f*ing webmaster? And no before you start I'm not broken, or David for that matter lest you start making him your new freeking windmill to tilt at.
 
MORE TEDIOUS BOLLOCKS

Much as i'm loathe to continue chasing my tail in this pointless conversation, seeing as you now appear to have dropped your earlier adversarial attitude & have decided to be reasonable I'll try to address the many complex issues you have raised......

> It's in the site rules. Anyone who has been modded down a certain number
> of times gets an automatic score of -1 attached to their posts. This
> reflects the fact that their posts are usually inflammatory / redundant /
> offensive, so regular users who 'browse at a score of 0 or 1' (i.e. screen
> out comments with a score of -1) won't be bothered by them.

Fair enough. I bow to your superior knowledge on that particular issue. Simply because I do not care.

> That's your right. You have freedom of speech here after all (though you'd
> like to take that away, then you couldn't say 'what the f*** you like',
> mr.nobody-pushes-me-around-fighting-talk).

Well, if my speaking in the vernacular & the fact that I'm prepared to say to someone's face what others will only say from behind the safety of their monitor in their "nice house" offends you, then I make absolutely no apologies for this.

In fact, I repeat, I will say what the f*** I like on here.
This doesn't mean that I am completely insensitive as to the effect it may have on others, & with this in mind, I often censor myself before I post anything which may offend the sensibilities of other users.

> Fair enough. But ignoring 'where everyone stands with the law' leads you
> to post ridiculous false comments, like saying davidt might get shut down,

I'm still nowhere near convinced that there would never, under any circumstances, be any Legal consequences to face if people were allowed to post blatant & vicious lies about the rich & powerful & dress them up as fact, given the added credence that, as they are posted on a supposedly regulated site, then ....we soon arrive at the "there's no smoke without fire" syndrome.

Still, as you're the one with the "nice job" & the "nice car", or at least, you're the one that's disclosed as much, perhaps you're right.

So What!

I've already speculated that David T may have his own agenda, & if it is the case that he isn't held accountable for what is posted on his site, then all the better for him if he wants to take his revenge on the man who so callously discarded him by allowing these vile rumours to go unchecked.

> No, YOU do. I respect the right to free speech in certain spheres.
> Obviously 'freedom of speech', as the old saying goes 'isn't freedom to
> yell 'fire' in a crowded classroom'. However if a private individual
> wishes to maintain a secure space where people can speak freely, then I
> think it's right that he should be able to do so, and wrong that he should
> be forced to curtail that freedom. I also think it's right that there are
> libel laws that cover most public forums (although the fact there are
> places where even they don't apply in certain places, e.g. in the UK at
> Hyde Park Corner, is valuable).

We were talking specifically about malicious & slanderous posts on a web site & whether the site moderator should allow them, especially if there is no one to hold to account for them, if what you say is correct, that neither the post-er nor the site owner can be held accountable.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone who purports to think highly of Morrissey would allow his site to be used as a tool with which to cause both him & his family & friends the kind of distress that these posts must generate

I'm astonished that some greasy journo hasn't had his snout in the trough by now & decided to leak these rumours, which is unfortunately what they've become, in the National Press.

Imagine the scenario of Morrissey having to answer some repugnant tabloid journalists impudent question as to whether or not he has AIDS!!

Of course he would refuse to answer, thereby proving the validity of the claim.

Welcome to the Real World.

> People are basically rational and if you can demonstrate an argument is
> false, if the argument doesn't have sufficient evidence, people aren't
> stupid, they will see that.

Really? Can you see how silly that looks?

If there had been a rumour about Moz having
> AIDs going round and it was just deleted every time it was posted, people
> would get word of it, and maybe would start believing in it. But if we
> say, okay, here is the rumour, now, is there any evidence for it, what are
> the arguments for and against? Then it will quickly become apparent where
> the truth lies, or if there is any serious evidence for the claim.
> Allowing free speech also has the advantage that there is no censor,
> because all censors bring to the table their own moral values, etc. What
> if the censor was against homosexuality, or the right of people to freedom
> of worship, etc? It's a slippery slope. Everyone has their particular
> moral opinions / quirks.

If there is no censorship, then there should at least be recourse to the Law if one feels they have been libelled, especially in the case of a professional whose livelihood could be affected by these kind of rumours & the adverse publicity that they generate.

Where there is no recourse to the Law, then the law should be changed. Until then, a degree of censorship is inevitable.

Introducing the Red Herring about homosexuality & religious beliefs doesn't alter my opinion. If general opinions are prevalent on certain sites that are openly hostile to gay people in general or people from a particular religious denomination, then the simple answer is to not go on those sites if you are likely to be offended.

This has no relevence to the matter we were discussing, whereby an actual individual is named & libelled.

> No, I won't agree to meet you in real life. You'd probably beat the shit
> out of me! So what, I'm not a fighter. Who gives a shit? You're very
> deluded if you think that whether you could beat someone in a physical
> fight is the be-all and end-all, some sort of badge of honour. I don't
> fight because I've got too much to lose, nice City job, nice car, nice
> house, etc, I'm happy with my life (without revealing more as I don't give
> out personal information on the net - a policy you may want to adopt in
> future given what happened between you and broken). Why risk all that for
> a pointless scrap with you? I'd have to be insane. Anyone can lose a fight
> in a second freeyourself, remember that. The other guy might have a knife,
> he gets his hand to it, whoops, there goes the contents of your stomach.
> Your life over in an instant. No, I'll just laugh quietly over my
> champagne thinking about a bunch of idiots beat the crap out of each other
> next time I'm out on the town - and leave the fighting to you.

I've left your entire paragraph, verbatim, as I would like you to point out where or when I threatened you with physical violence?

I'm perfectly capable of rational discussion, as I hope I have proved.

I invited you to meet me in order to discuss our differences.

Yes, there was an implicit undertone that suggested, were you to verbally abuse me in the manner you have done on here tonight, I may be inclined to lose my temper, but surely that goes without saying?

Just as there is more than an undertone running throughout the paragraph above which would suggest that you consider yourself somehow superior to me.

Your boasts about how you have a lavish lifestyle & how everything is "Nice" on 'Planet You' do you no credit, & frankly, make you seem rather ridiculous.

> Simple answer, be careful about who you give your details out to online.

I must say, I'm surprised by just how many 'facts' about me, that were released by broken after he'd trawled through my cyber dustbin, you appear to have at your fingertips.

One might almost believe that perhaps you've been taking notes & compiling a dossier......

> You're entitled to your opinion. All I can say to that is that davidt
> seemed to permit freedom of speech before all that cease and desist stuff
> just as much as he does now. I don't notice a change in behaviour on his
> part. In particular, what LEAD to him being 'shut out' (if he has been)
> was the fact that he permitted a story that was defamatory to Moz. He
> would hardly have had a 'motive' for permitting it before he had been shut
> out now, would he?

Well, we don't really know what's going on in David T's head, do we?

Maybe he really is bitter & twisted.

After all, there's a lot of it about.
 
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT DAVID T

> Bitter? I'm sure he would be. Still that's a far cry from accusing him of
> deliberately posting shit or allowing shit to be posted as you seem to be
> doing here. There's nothing preventing David from shutting this site down
> completely, and based on the kind of utter crap that gets posted here on a
> daily basis I'd say he has the patience of a saint not to walk away from
> it all. I find it hard to believe that he maintains it just so some random
> idiot will post something rude about Moz and company in a feeble attempt
> at revenge.

> You're walking on thin ice here. Someone smacked you so you start lashing
> out at anyone, even the f*ing webmaster? And no before you start I'm not
> broken, or David for that matter lest you start making him your new
> freeking windmill to tilt at.

Welcome to the debate.

Try not to be rude, there's a good chap.
 
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT DAVID T

> Welcome to the debate.

> Try not to be rude, there's a good chap.

Heavens, did my use of profanity offend you?

btw, I'm not a chap.
 
Now Piss Off

> Heavens, did my use of profanity offend you?

> btw, I'm not a chap.

No, it was your use of stupidity that really galled.

I thought I detected a whiff of stale sanitary towels.

Urgh!
 
Re: Are you still here?

> Freeyourself, you posted that davidt was in danger of being shut down.

I did.

> He isn't.

He is.

> I posted that he isn't.

You were wrong.

> Ergo, I corrected you. Live with it.

Wrong again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Re: fao DavidT
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Have a Query
I
F
Re: fao DavidT
Replies
1
Views
1K
stupid american bitch
S
R
FAO FREEYOURSELF
Replies
12
Views
817
realitybites
R
M
FAO freeyourself
Replies
6
Views
678
freeyourself
F
S
FAO freeyourself
Replies
2
Views
495
freeyourself
F
Back
Top Bottom