John Reimer wrote:
Hello grauzone,
John Reimer wrote:
Hello grauzone,
Oh boy! Come on now... you guys, this is so apparent an issue. I
am actually a little surprised a few of you are so defensive of
this situation. I'm not sure how far you would go to defend
something "evil"... but I become more astounded all the time. How
far does this go before you finally decide it's time to step in?
I hear some of you gripe so strongly (verbally violent) over the
internet marketing and web scripts... and yet you will defend such
things as this so ruthlessly?
Yes. That's exactly because we're not assholes.
So you approve of the material on the website then?
Not necessarily. I don't even know what exactly is on his website.
But I defend free speech, not attacking people because of irrelevant
issues, and all that.
Hmm... irrelevent, eh? If you haven't figured out the content yet...
how are you able to make a decision on whether it is irrelevent or not.
I suppose it's about "furrys". It might very well be that I'm offended
by the actual content, but since I'm obviously not forced to look at it,
I don't really care.
Anyway... you can have no issue with my free speech then. But it's
apparently called "attack" when it's from my side of the fence. I ask
You were the first one to attack. Why do you think you're in the
position to complain?
you if calling a person a a**hole can be considered an attack or free
speech? I don't call people names. I think you fail the consistancy test.
I'd rather call this a "counterattack". Not sure if I want to play the
pacifist.
Anyway, I don't really have the time to flame around. I guess I'll stop
posting now. I suggest you do the same.
I guess you're worried that the personal desires of people like him
lead to the downfall of moral values and society at large or
something, which is why you feel the need of putting pressure on them
in order to stop it? Sounds like a plan.
Yes, good description.
Your approach doesn't work.
-JJR
