Nominal, that's the worst rendering of a rather fantastic Pink Floyd song I've ever seen. If you're going to be quoting Pink Floyd lyrics, please find a site that gets the song right.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Slip Disc: > > Chaz > frequently committed crimes against other people's rights and > priviledges. / Vamadevananda > > You are correct, it was Vamadevananda who made the "crime" assertion. > My apologies to you Slip Disc for forgetting in the moment of writing > my post. As you may recall, I replied to both of you together, at > first, and when I later replied to Ornamental mind, wherein I > mistakenly attributed the "crime" assertion to you, I had forgotten > which one of you had made it. Again, my apologies. You have your right > to your own opinion, in any case. > > 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. / Slip Disc > > Oh yeah, I know... I've been on the receiving end of some of > Chazwin's... "disdainful ridicule" (?), myself. I think it has > something to do with the "English" or "British" schoolmaster (and > other such people) style... It may be a little bit after your own > time, but Chazwin reminds me reminds me of that Pink Floyd song "We > Don't Need No Education".... > http://www.hotlyrics.net/lyrics/P/Pink_Floyd/We_Don_t_Need_No_Education.html > > (helicopter in background) > > (beat) > > When we grew up and went to school > There were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they > could > > A boring ready region upon anything we did exposing every weakness how > the kid did bye the kid (laughter) > > Out in the middle of nowhere they were home at night with friends, > psychopathic wads would flash down with a inches of their lives > > (beat) > > We don't need no education > We don't need no thoughts controlled > There is no sarcasm in the class room > Teachers leave them kids alone > (yells) hey teachers leave them kids alone! > > All alone you're just eight whether you break it no more. > > All alone you're just eight whether u break it no more. > > (british kids) > We don't need no education > We don't need no thoughts controlled > There is no sarcasm in the class room > Teachers leave them kids alone > (yells) hey teachers leave those kids alone! > > All alone ur just a... Whether u break it no more. > All alone ur just a... Whether u break it no more. > > (beat) > > If u dont eat ur meat u kant have ne pudding > How kan u have any pudding if u dont eat ur meat > > If u dont eat ur meat u kant have ne pudding > How kan u have any pudding if u dont eat ur meat > > If u dont eat ur meat u kant have ne pudding > How kan u have any pudding if u dont eat ur meat > > (kids screaming) > (beeping) > > > That's Chazwin, there.... yelling "If u dont eat ur meat u kant have > ne pudding > How kan u have any pudding if u dont eat ur meat".... > > Now, you see? That's how I would.... and do.... handle a likeable > rogue like Chazwin.... he can take it..... not with censorship, > though... never with censorship. > Now, of course.... I think that, on this board..... the actual > "teachers" are really Kierkecraig, Chris Jenkins and whoever else > happens to be a "moderator".... > nominal9 > > > > On Feb 18, 7:43 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
