> From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 07:23:19PM -0500, The Fool wrote: > > > Yes. Yes. I corrected Grimaldi when he erronously said that wilber > > had not violated the etiqutte guidlines. And I mocked him. And I > > ask how many lurkers would have gone away because of wilber07. And > > I posted a comment about the phychology of communities. And I said > > something to effect that I did not want wilber07 to crosspost anything > > that had my email address on it anywhere. > > Okay, now something is getting through my thick skull, but you'll have > to bear with me a little more since the thickness is great indeed. > > A) From what you wrote, how would you characterize your expressed view > on defending Wilbur from being banned versus advocating Wilbur being > banned, on a scale of 1 to 10: > > defending --> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <-- trying to ban > > > B) From what you wrote, how would you characterize your expressed view > on defending the right to unregulated (or minimal regulation) purchasing > of firearms versus highly regulated purchasing of firearms, on a scale > of 1 to 10: > > unregulated purchases --> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <-- restricted purchases > > > To me, it looked like A) 6 and B) 1
Go back and read some of my older posts. I have made no statements and posted no articles that were against free speech in any way. Furthermore while I don't equate this particular forum with the first amendment, I have made no statements to that effect, and none in the wilber07 affair. Being that this is a democractic forum and the people in it are allowed to formulate their own rules / laws / whatever, It is not for ME to decide these things. As long as they are not trying to force their ways / rules / laws / whatever on anything/anybody other than this list, I will not speak up.
