I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Comments censored elsewhere -- a new feature

.
Please read the rules before entering comments.

Rule change -- I have decided to allow comments on any subject. This rescinds Rule #5.

Often, when I am reading a post or a comment on a blog (or other website) where I have been or expect to be censored, I want to respond to some article or comment but I don't feel that my response is worth a whole article on this blog. Therefore, I decided to set up this post here where I can post responses to those other blogs without creating whole new articles. I feel that it is only fair that I allow visitors to also post responses here to other blogs where they are censored or expect censorship. Please follow these rules (listen up, Voice in the Wilderness):

(1) Do not respond here to any comment posted here -- this feature is not intended for long discussions. If you feel that you must respond to a comment posted here, try to do it in the other blog, either quoting or linking to the comment here.

(2) Follow the usual rules of commenting etiquette, i.e., avoid posting anything that is unlawful, threatening, extremely abusive, tortious, obscene, libelous, or invasive of another's privacy.

(3) Do not respond here to articles where commenting is closed to all. My main purpose here is to counter some bloggers' unfairness of allowing some reasonable comments and commenters but not others.

(4) Do not post vacuous comments here, i.e., comments that just say that the original author is wrong or stupid -- or something like that -- and nothing more.

(5) (this rule has been rescinded) Try to stick to topics that have been discussed on this blog. A list of topics is in the post label list in the left sidebar.

(6) Try to create a direct link to the article or comment that you are answering. Direct links to individual comments in comment threads can often be created by clicking on a particular feature in the comment, e.g., the comment number on Panda's Thumb and the time & date on this blog. The format for turning text into links (i.e., creating "embedded links") is shown here.

(7) Because visitors here may not be up to speed on what you are responding to, you might add here a brief introductory or explanatory note that you would not put in your comment if you were posting it on the other site.

A permanent link to this feature has been posted in the left sidebar.

Also, I will create a list here of blogs and other websites that are known to practice arbitrary censorship.

This is sort of reverse censorship -- maybe a first for the Internet!

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I'll be the first to use this feature. Here is the reply I would have made to Fatheaded Ed Brayton on a comment thread concerning the question of whether the Dover school board could have mooted the Kitzmiller case by repealing the ID policy before the release of the decision. This was the point where Ed banned me permanently from his blog. I was then posting under the name LarryFarma. Ed said,

Now you're either lying about what FRCP 12 says or you're just too stupid to understand basic English. Section B6 that you cite specifically says that a case can be dismissed for failure to state an actionable claim:

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

That has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with failure to accept a proposed settlement, it has to do with whether they've made a claim that the court can provide relief for under the law. There is nothing whatsoever in the standards about dismissing for failure to make a settlement that the court thinks is reasonable.


Ed, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks the purpose of this rule is -- all that matters is that I interpreted the rule literally. When a defendant offers an out-of-court settlement that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that can be granted by the court, then the plaintiff's complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Furthermore, Rule 12 provides that the Section B6 defense may be raised at any time during the trial, meaning that the court can rule at any time during the trial that there is a failure to state this claim, even if this claim was initially valid. A change in circumstances can cause a failure of this claim at any time during a trial -- an offer of a satisfactory out-of-court settlement is only one kind of circumstance change that can cause such a failure.

Also, the Supreme Court once ruled that a person invoking a law need not prove that the law was intended to benefit him, but I don't know the citation.

BTW, your friend Dan, who teaches constitutional law, is a complete jerk. He made no attempt to present counterarguments but only used invective in responding to my comments.

Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

How about the people who are censored on your blog?

Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:27:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>>>> How about the people who are censored on your blog? <<<<<<

The only comments that I have censored on this blog are:

(1) -- comments that gossiped about my private life.

(2) -- comments by commenters who misrepresented my views by impersonating me.

Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> The only comments that I have censored on this blog are:... <

That is an outright lie!

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> 1) -- comments that gossiped about my private life. <

A moot point. You don't have a life.

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:12:00 AM  
Blogger cristian said...

Very good idea. I support you and your intention to fight for the freedom of speech.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:01:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home