I was replying to Slip Disc's "crime" assertion, above. << Nominal9
Crime assertion? I merely pointed out the obvious which is well known concerning Chazwin's forum demeanor. Fact is, if I were to address you in Chazwin style you most likely would be "offended" by all the expletives directed towards your misinterpretation of my post, which could also be considered effrontery. Again I reiterate: Chazwin was vulgar and out of line with Minds Eye decorum. (that is not a dictum of criminal activity) However, if that is not enough for you, I will cite some pertinent points from the Minds Eye Posting Guidelines. >From Posting Guidelines 5. Bannings All decisions regarding disciplinary actions up to and including banishment from the group are discussed thoroughly among the moderators before any decision is made. None of the moderators take it upon themselves to discipline a member of the group. Disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to: warnings, return to moderated status, banishment from the group, and ETERNAL DAMNATION. ************************************************** In other words Nom9, don't crimp on me because I didn't ban anyone! 3. Etiquette & Principles Aggressive/bullying posts are unwelcome. If you've had a bad day, go and take your stress out elsewhere. (Chaz has gone elsewhere and so should you take your Slip attack elsewhere too, it's baseless) Avoid swearing/cussing, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the discussion at hand. Sometimes it happens naturally in the flow of a sentence -- and I'm guilty of it -- but there are many far more creative ways to express yourself. (I've never found any of Chaz putrid verbalization to be pertinent to any discussion.) It's not up to me, I'm just an observer! On Feb 18, 11:18 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Owners of groups determine the standards by fiat. Start your own > group > with your standards if it is important to you or find one that > matches > your tenets. There is no true democracy in a Google Group. / > ornamentalmind > > I agree with you, Orn.... I was replying to Slip Disc's "crime" > assertion, above. As to Google's policies... well that depends on > Google and on the "consumer" rights and responsibilities that it > grants to its "users".... but that includes the Group Owners, I would > think... Point being, if Goolgle happens to be a bit more > "enlightened" (my view of it) that the Group Owners as to any or other > censroship issue, then Google can make it's own countervailing > judgement.... > But ultimately it does get down to a question of the "company you > keep"... I've been keeping company with Chazwin, over on that other > Group.... > nominal9 > > On Feb 18, 10:54 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > nom, it is neither a right nor a wrong issue. It is a what/where > > issue. What sort of group do you want to be a member of? Where on the > > internet do you want to join? > > > Owners of groups determine the standards by fiat. Start your own group > > with your standards if it is important to you or find one that matches > > your tenets. There is no true democracy in a Google Group. > > > On Feb 18, 7:46 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Vamadevananda, > > > I appreciate and respect both your own as well as Slip Disc's rights > > > to your own opinions on this issue. I myself make a distinction > > > between words and deeds when it relates to questions of freedom of > > > speech, I think that I have said this before. I have had to put up > > > with more than my own share of verbal abuse, in many instances, and I > > > have never asked for the censorship of the, in my opinion, abusers. I > > > have tried to either refute or sometimes, if it got to that point, > > > even reply in kind to such, in my opinion, verbal abusers. I come at > > > it from a "literary" and "historical" perspective.... censorship has > > > muzzled scientific speech, artistic speech, political speech, > > > religious speech, satirical or humorous speech, and even "bad taste" > > > speech. In some cases (most I would say) the censorship was, itself, > > > more harmful or ill-intentioned than the actual expression censored. > > > You are all fairly intelligent and probably aware of this in your own > > > regards... You, Vamadevananda, want censorship and "social decorum"? > > > I would think that you have more than enough of a bad case example of > > > where it can lead with the Indian Caste system....As for Slip > > > Disc....crimes of speech???? Show me the law or legal statute that > > > outlaws any speech that Chazwin or anyone else may have used? Unless, > > > of course, you are talking about some "political" law from some sort > > > of "authoritarian" regime....among which I , myself, would include > > > some of the so-called politically correct laws promulgated by the so- > > > called enlightened eEuropean or other (U.S. & Canada) democracies.... > > > Nah, you are both wrong on this.... > > > nominal9 > > > > On Feb 17, 11:09 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chazwin, the person, or his thoughts and ideas were never the issue > > > > here, Nom. > > > > > It was his verbal " behaviour," which was grossly disparaging of > > > > others at times, including intolerance of other people and their > > > > beliefs. If members of this forum have their rights, then Chaz > > > > frequently committed crimes against other people's rights and > > > > priviledges. > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:57 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Proof Positive... Gabby and Francis.... here's the link to > > > > > Epistemology Group and Chazwin's own > > > > > words...http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_thread/thread/7913... > > > > > Maybe Kierkegraig or (I suspect) Chris Jenkins (more than likely,the > > > > > censor) will give their side of it in explanation... I would like to > > > > > hear it, as well as perhaps some avenue to a mediation or a > > > > > reconciliation of the matter.... Chazwin's is an especially > > > > > intelligent voice to stiffle, under any circumstances. Although, as I > > > > > said, I despise censorship under all circumstances. > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > On Feb 17, 1:21 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing this information with us. It is much appreciated > > > > > > at > > > > > > least on my side. Any sheep counts. Please keep us informed. > > > > > > > On 17 Feb., 18:23, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I just read a statement on another board by Chazwin... I > > > > > > > reproduce it > > > > > > > and my own reaction below: > > > > > > > > "Maybe I'll avoid getting a summary > > > > > > > banning, as I have with Mind's Eye. / Chazwin.... > > > > > > > > Say what? Chazwin.... > > > > > > > banning?.... My Hackles are starting to rise.... > > > > > > > nominal9" > > > > > > > > I haven't gotten any explanation from Chaz, maybe it is all a big > > > > > > > misunderstanding on someone or other's part....Hope so... I would > > > > > > > hate > > > > > > > to see good friends, fellow posters, over some misunderstanding... > > > > > > > I despise censorship...., myself. > > > > > > > nominal9- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
