Gossip about my private affairs
Some commenters here have been losing debates with me and have been taking out their frustration by gossiping here about my private affairs.
How many times do I have to explain to you jerks that a fairness doctrine for blog visitors' comments does not mean that comments may not be censored for legitimate reasons, e.g., being abusive, threatening, illegal, invading privacy, etc.. And while you accuse me of being a hypocrite for censoring gossip about me, you see nothing wrong with the egregious arbitrary censorship that goes on at Panda's Thumb, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's blog, Sleazy PZ Myers' blog, etc.. What a bunch of lousy two-faced hypocrites.
OK, I will leave your lousy trash on this blog so that you can't accuse me of any kind of censorship.
How many times do I have to explain to you jerks that a fairness doctrine for blog visitors' comments does not mean that comments may not be censored for legitimate reasons, e.g., being abusive, threatening, illegal, invading privacy, etc.. And while you accuse me of being a hypocrite for censoring gossip about me, you see nothing wrong with the egregious arbitrary censorship that goes on at Panda's Thumb, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's blog, Sleazy PZ Myers' blog, etc.. What a bunch of lousy two-faced hypocrites.
OK, I will leave your lousy trash on this blog so that you can't accuse me of any kind of censorship.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/03/2007 05:18:00 PM
1 Comments:
> Some commenters here have been losing debates with me and have been taking out their frustration by gossiping here about my private affairs. <
You must have been censoring even more than I thought. There is no evidence on this blog of you ever winning any debate. If you won a debate, why not leave it on the blog?
> How many times do I have to explain... <
You only have to explain once. Bleating groundless nonsense repeatedly is not explaining.
> a fairness doctrine for blog visitors' comments does not mean that comments may not be censored for legitimate reasons <
You didn't have legitimate reasons.
> e.g., being abusive <
You would have to censor your own posts much more than others.
> invading privacy, etc.. <
How is mentioning your brother invading privacy? How is saying that Bill Carter was a good friend of yours for decades invading privacy? You are the one who has made an issue out of this with your lies.
> you see nothing wrong with the egregious arbitrary censorship that goes on at Panda's Thumb, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's blog, Sleazy PZ Myers' blog, etc.. <
Because it does not seem to exist there. How many times must I repeat this?
"Fatheaded", "Sleazy", "What a bunch of lousy two-faced hypocrites."
> e.g., being abusive <
Grow up Larry Anonymous Fafarman. If you stop the arbitrary censorship, as you have said you will, you will stop calling attention to what you claim is personal information and it will cease. Now if you really want to be taken seriously, you will stop the childish insults. They are probably the main reason that nobody wants to be associated with your blog.
If you act more like an adult, as do Ed Brayton, PZ Meyers and such, perhaps it is not too late to save your blog. Of course it would take all of the fun out of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home