I've been participating on threads that have merit. This one doesn't, except for your mangling of the lyrics to Pink Floyd. The rules of the group are posted, as are the disciplinary guidelines. We already talked about this last year. That makes this topic ad nauseum. Smug and satisfied is ad hominem.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:05 PM, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well.... Look what the cat dragged in.. > If it isn't Chris Jenkins? > So, do you and Kierkecraig care to "speak to the issue"? Or are you > just going to sit there, smug and satisfied, and stand pat...? > I will let you take the discussion, if any, in whatever direction you > and the others like. > nominal9 > On Feb 19, 11:26 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> And the first part, known separately as "The Happiest Days of Our >> Lives", is as follows: >> >> Well, when we grew up and went to school, >> There were certain teachers, >> Who would hurt the children in any way they could, >> By pouring their derision, >> Upon anything we did, >> Exposing every weakness, >> However carefully hidden by the kids. >> >> But in (but in) the town it was well known, >> When they got home at night, >> Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them, >> Within inches of their lives. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:20 AM, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Actually, Slip Disc.... >> > the "official" lyrics to the song were as follows.... >> >http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/another-brick-2-wall.html >> > Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 (Waters) 3:56 >> >> > We don't need no education >> > We dont need no thought control >> > No dark sarcasm in the classroom >> > Teachers leave them kids alone >> > Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! >> > All in all it's just another brick in the wall. >> > All in all you're just another brick in the wall. >> >> > We don't need no education >> > We dont need no thought control >> > No dark sarcasm in the classroom >> > Teachers leave them kids alone >> > Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! >> > All in all it's just another brick in the wall. >> > All in all you're just another brick in the wall. >> >> > "Wrong, Do it again!" >> > "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you >> > have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?" >> > "You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!".... >> >> > nominal9 >> >> > On Feb 19, 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_Educati... >> >> >> (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 >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
