Forums and the Internet

[mortismurphy]

This has absolutely nothing in relation to what I wrote!! I did not even say I ''own a piece of the Internet''!!

Why would you bring this up if you don't believe in any of it?

There is even an argument made by certain legal experts that ''we each own a piece of the internet the minute we log on and begin posting'' .

By answering me with my quotation you have just answered your own question - NB, ''by certain legal experts'', i.e. it is not my opinion being quoted! If you quoted me further I then said my exact reason for stating it, relevant passages in bold,

I do not want to get bogged down in topical legalistic minutiae but it suffices to say that, the internet is far more complex than merely a series of private commodities.

Something I have noticed about you is that you always fail to answer simple questions. Predictable!
Which also makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.

I don't lie. So wrong again.

And I answer questions so wrong again.

The reality is in fact,  the net in not nebulous, nor infinite. It is, in fact, a bunch of linked public and private constructs. Private can operate as they see fit, within the confines of civil law (no libel/slander, or actionable defemation, fir example). Moderating content as they see fit doesnt violate any of that. In fact, its pretty common practice across all sorts of sites, topics, etc.

Your "owning a piece of the internet" theory goes direct to content creation, and ownership of creative content. Fyi,so far the courts side with site owners, largely, on that front. If you post a creative work, without seeking alternate protection or copyrights (photos are different), the site owner has the right to modify, moderate, edit or remove it at their discretion. This is especially true of text content. They can reuse it too, with limited useage (promotion and profit of their construct/product, including puplication). In other words..lthe minute you hit "post" on a private site, youre giving up some rights to whats in that post. That might not be the way you think thing should operate, but its the way the do, and the way they are supposed to. Which, of course, still doesn't actually address my question.

You have missed my point completely - incidentally, I have not answered most of your quotations because I believe I can sufficiently answer them in one. What you say is, mostly, true although it is far more complex than that; the implications of the internet on intellectual property and mechanical copyright is been keenly contested in the courts as we speak - in many areas. You however have missed my ultimate point: the internet is inherently consensual. Without some sort of consensual 'democratizing' zeitgeist, it would exist as a very different animal. You boil down the net to, ''a bunch of linked public and private constructs.''. That is a fair point except you have left out the millions per day who float in and out of those constructs and actually, germinate and proliferate them. If Youtube existed as a stratified, mere, commodity, owned by a person or corporation, it basically would not exist at all as it would only have uninteresting and limited content provided by its ownership. Wikipedia would not function without immense public expertise and knowledge.

If the internet was a mere, authoritarian construct of self-interested concern it would not be the net we possess now. Amazon and other online marts would probably still exist, although user reviews would be jettisoned.

4) news papers (and other news sources) have an editorial policy and code of ethics, in a free press (and as part of the legal boundaries of one) covering reporting. This is not that....not remotely. The analogy is so flawed in its construction, it doesnt deserve serious consideration. And it doesnt answer the original question.

It is actually very pertinent to the debate. Rock forums were not created from a vacuum. They obviously answer some human instinct which existed before the internet (the instinct to, talk about rock bands basically).  Can you think of another pre-internet medium similar to a fan forum that was dedicated to a rock band? The answer can only be music magazines and fanzines. I bought, and still do buy, music magazines. In them one can find a plethora of differing opinions. In one letter you may read, ''St Anger sucks balls'', whereas in the letter next door, ''St Anger is an underrated masterpiece''. The difference from HTGTH is, people sort of accept - and allow - other opinions with a common sense approach and ironic humour. There is a sort of unwritten consensus that you can criticise (you would say, 'troll') a band with no reflection on the personal integrity of the person holding a different viewpoint. Also, the opinions expressed are divorced from the ownership/hierarchy - or the ownership at least sustains a section where opposing views are voiced.

As I said, you find left wing letters in right wing newspapers and vice versa. Why does the newspaper publish them when they criticise the editorial policies? The answer lies in the consensual democratic spirit which, is the only environment to have discussion.

That approach does not exist here. That is why so many have left.

So what? Thats jarmos concern, not yours. If the place empties out, it empties out. You go elsewhere.

So..what you seem to be saying is...youre doing this for the good of htgth? Bullshit. Sorry, it is. Its good for YOU, because thats the way you want things run.  But ill say it again: you are not the crusader fighting for the downtrodden. Youre the guy screaming entitlement and telling a business owner how to run his shop, because you think you know better.

Id say youre better off going to a shop thats run the way you like, and letting the original owner sink or swim on his idea. Because the owner isnt going to change because you think he should, especially if hes ecstatic about the way things are going/running. And, to be frank, you have no right to tell him different. He might let you, because hes feeling magnanimous....but youre just screaming into the storm.

I'll be just as magnanimous and not point out the entirety of the slippery slope you set up, above and below, too.

That slightly answers the original question..but the answer surely reflects poorly on your opinion and its basis.

I think the forum has virtually reached that point. When I first registered it was the most prolific community on the internet. Now, if you removed your 'whiners', it would barely register two posts per day.

My reasons for posting are, the reasons I post on any board. I think you over estimate the level of investment in posting on a forum. I personally do it to waste time on topics that interest me.

[pilferk]

You have missed my point completely - incidentally, I have not answered most of your quotations because I believe I can sufficiently answer them in one.

Im not sure why you think that, given there was one simple question that has not really even been addressed, yet.

What you say is, mostly, true although it is far more complex than that; the implications of the internet on intellectual property and mechanical copyright is been keenly contested in the courts as we speak - in many areas.

Aware, and i summed up the current case law gist for you in my last post. The direction,especially in relation to text, has been largely in support of site owners rights. Review if you feel necessary, but moderation, deletion, and the like have firmly been upheld as site owner rights, for any reason they deem necessary, short of defaming the poster or misrepresenting their character.  So has topic selection, fyi, and moderation specifically to adhere to it.

Yes, there are lots of pending cases. But there is lots of supporting case law to the above, little to no contrary case law, and no reason to think the winds of the court are changing. Thats U.S. courts...but most reputable international courts have taken the same bent.

You however have missed my ultimate point: the internet is inherently consensual. Without some sort of consensual 'democratizing' zeitgeist, it would exist as a very different animal. You boil down the net to, ''a bunch of linked public and private constructs.''. That is a fair point except you have left out the millions per day who float in and out of those constructs and actually, germinate and proliferate them.

No, i didnt. They are consumers, who are  essentially invited guest/participants to the owned or some public run constructs. If you missed the inference, there it is laid out for you. And you make my point in just a bit...but you probably dont know it.

For some spaces (newsgroups, etc) thats less true. But anything you "sign up" to participate in....there you go.

The only differences in in the way they are run..land those details are up to the ownership.

If Youtube existed as a stratified, mere, commodity, owned by a person or corporation, it basically would not exist at all as it would only have uninteresting and limited content provided by its ownership. Wikipedia would not function without immense public expertise and knowledge.

Two GREAT examples of my point. Two moderated privately owned entities, with complicated and extensive, moderation algorithims, who have both supporters snd detractors in their moderation choices. Youtubes more draconian music search algoths caused huge uproar not long ago. Wikipedias bent for moderating legit info that is somewhat controversial was legendary.

And both require users to accept complicated, long, legal terms of service whch require them to relinquish huge swaths of their creative rights to the site owners. And they can, and do, change those terms constantly. Users can accept them, or not use the sites. They can view content, maybe...but they cant actively participate.

Thanks for proving my point so wonderfully and destroying your own!

That you find there moderation bent acceptable, and laudable, is great. Many others disagree...and go elsewhere. Same point here.

If the internet was a mere, authoritarian construct of self-interested concern it would not be the net we possess now. Amazon and other online marts would probably still exist, although user reviews would be jettisoned.

Oh, there are certainly unmoderated parts of the net that are the wild wild west, as there have been back to the old newsgroup days. This isnt One of them, and there is zero mandate it has to be. Or should be. Or needs to be.

It is actually very pertinent to the debate. Rock forums were not created from a vacuum. They obviously answer some human instinct which existed before the internet (the instinct to, talk about rock bands basically).  Can you think of another pre-internet medium similar to a fan forum that was dedicated to a rock band? The answer can only be music magazines and fanzines. I bought, and still do buy, music magazines. In them one can find a plethora of differing opinions. In one letter you may read, ''St Anger sucks balls'', whereas in the letter next door, ''St Anger is an underrated masterpiece''. The difference from HTGTH is, people sort of accept - and allow - other opinions with a common sense approach and ironic humour. There is a sort of unwritten consensus that you can criticise (you would say, 'troll') a band with no reflection on the personal integrity of the person holding a different viewpoint. Also, the opinions expressed are divorced from the ownership/hierarchy - or the ownership at least sustains a section where opposing views are voiced.

Show me where jarmo purports to be a jouralistic entity, and we can talk. Til then...just because it, in your opinion, resembles a letters colomn doesnt mean it is one, or the owner intends it to ge one, or it should be treated like one. Papers did it because it was a journalitic ethos on editorial ethics.  There is no such mandate here, nor should there be an expectation of one. Thus, irrelevant.  If you expect one, thats your misconception...100% incorrect.

As I said, you find left wing letters in right wing newspapers and vice versa. Why does the newspaper publish them when they criticise the editorial policies? The answer lies in the consensual democratic spirit which, is the only environment to have discussion.

See above for those left wing/right wing answers. Also note editorial bents for taking easy to pick apart arguments as a basis for furthering ones own agenda but crying that you are reping both povs.

The rest, though, is not only untrue, its a patent Mistruth. Moderated discussion, based on moderator opinion and whim, has been a part of humanity for centuries. Without your "democratic spirit" (aka freedom of speech). You are arguing that that is what you want, what youd like to see, not what is, or what should be expected. What IS, is that a message board owner can moderate any way they want in a privately owned construct.

Thats all that matters in any of this. Simple question: do you disagree?

If you do...you are wrong.

If you dont, the debate is over. Because all you can now argue is "should or shouldnt"...and all that is just you telling jarmo how to run his "business"...which you have zero right to expect him to listen to. Which returns us to the original question way back at the beginning, which still isnt answered.

Simple as that.

That approach does not exist here. That is why so many have left.

Nope. Working as intended.

As for people leaving..i return to the "so what" argument. Natural selection. Survival f the fittest. Supply and demand. Whatever you want to call it. And just think...if your doom and gloom holds up,mand the site closes, you can go to your new home and crow about being right.

You dislike the moderation policy here SO much..why do you care.

I think the forum has virtually reached that point. When I first registered it was the most prolific community on the internet. Now, if you removed your 'whiners', it would barely register two posts per day.

Again....so what?

Its jarmos site. If hes happy with the traffic levels....thats all that realky matters here. Right?

Or are you saying you feel entitled to more action so you have more content to consume? Cause thats the way it sounds...

My reasons for posting are, the reasons I post on any board. I think you over estimate the level of investment in posting on a forum. I personally do it to waste time on topics that interest me.

So, you dont care? See, that just makes my original question...the one that keeps getting skipped over...all the more interesting.

Because if you dont care, and you are that uninvested, one wonders why you continue to tell jarmo how best to operate his construct. Just shrug and move on. Notvreally worh the time if you are that nonchelant.  But it makes absolutely no sense, given the discussion. It just doesnt pass the smell test..though it IS a typical board warrior tactic...an old, tired,transparent one.

Edit: i would also point out its tough to argue cause over any drop in traffic. Theres also not a lot going on right now with the band.

[pilferk]

As an aside, i would make these same arguments in regards to "the other" sites who choose a less strict moderation policy. Thats their right, and they should ge allowed to disseminate any info they want, how they want, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Im a frequent lurker in many of them.

[mortismurphy]

Again, you miss the point completely. They, users of the internet, are both consumers and germinators. The very act of, uploading a video to Youtube or posting on a forum is germinating new information which could not exist without the participant - 'consumer' you would call him (I do not like that term for an user of the internet but I am happy to use it for sake of argument). This information is then freely accessible in a public sphere, to comment upon and germinate further areas of information which could not potentially exist without the original. It is viral, contagious. Your, strictly limited viewpoint of the internet, between authoritarian owners, safely protected through antiquated statues, and headless serf-like 'consumers', simply does not stand up to scrutiny. It is probably one of the most false interpretations of the internet I have ever heard. It has no reality with the technology, the litigation nor, the intellectual milieu.

You have to remember that 'consumers' can in turn, self moderate their own sphere. If I create an internet forum - which I can do, free-of-charge - I do not technically own it, someone like ezboard owns it, but I can internally moderate it without interference from ezboard. Youtube users can moderate the reaction to their content. The internet is not this, monolith, you so portray. It creates new areas of public space, as appendages to larger areas of public space.  It has a cyclonic self-replicating 'cause and effect' tendency.

What does this stand in practice? In one sense Youtube is merely a website owned by Google which requires users to obey a 'Terms and Conditions'. Yes, you are correct here. In another sense, the very website becomes the consumer, as the website proliferates on a mass scale. Ask yourself what Youtube would be without a certain, democratising tendency (and no, I am not saying it is a free-for-all, whereby, paedophilia for instance can be uploaded)? When a consumer, let?s call him consumer B, accesses a video placed on Youtube by consumer A, it is not Google he is accessing - nor particularly thankful for: it is consumer A, A's area of the internet, A's creation!

Let's apply this to HTGTH. When I read a post by Generation X, It is Generation X I am reading, whose opinions it is, who is inherent to the post?s very core, existence and being. It is not Jarmo's. Jarmo created the public space to facilitate the arrival of Generation?s post but he has no part in the post's creation. The post could not exist without the consumer. Generation X, to a certain degree, has created his own piece of the internet by the mere act of posting. That is how the internet operates.

Show me where jarmo purports to be a jouralistic entity, and we can talk. Til then...just because it, in your opinion, resembles a letters colomn doesnt mean it is one, or the owner intends it to ge one, or it should be treated like one. Papers did it because it was a journalitic ethos on editorial ethics.  There is no such mandate here, nor should there be an expectation of one. Thus, irrelevant.  If you expect one, thats your misconception...100% incorrect.

Are you saying forums were created out of a vacuum? There has to be a precedent in human history and, journalism, magazines, etc. are certainly the closest precedent. What is your problem with this analogy? I have seen it used many times before and nobody seems to have a problem with it! In a magazine/newspaper, from a democratic country, there is usually an ownership (analogous to Jarmo). There is usually an editorial policy which may or may not be synonymous with the ownership; there is an editorial area of interest, e.g. politics, music, film (analogous to, 'Guns N? Roses'); there is an editorial bias upon that area of interest, e.g., left or right ideology (analogous to, whether a GN?R website is pro or anti, new band/Axl); there is usually a letters columns, in which readers contribute (analogous to a forum); there is letters which do not subscribe to that editorial bias (analogous to, me, posting now). Why the controversy?

The rest, though, is not only untrue, its a patent Mistruth. Moderated discussion, based on moderator opinion and whim, has been a part of humanity for centuries. Without your "democratic spirit" (aka freedom of speech). You are arguing that that is what you want, what youd like to see, not what is, or what should be expected. What IS, is that a message board owner can moderate any way they want in a privately owned construct.

Thats all that matters in any of this. Simple question: do you disagree?

If you do...you are wrong.

If you dont, the debate is over. Because all you can now argue is "should or shouldnt"...and all that is just you telling jarmo how to run his "business"...which you have zero right to expect him to listen to. Which returns us to the original question way back at the beginning, which still isnt answered.

Simple as that.

Certainly and a recipe for fascism. There is no other reason why, say, Britain's Daily Mail would publish a letter by a person advocating mass immigration and further EU integration (all anathema to the notoriously right-wing Daily Mail) than that the Daily Mail buys into a spirit of, free speech. Letters such as this do not further the interests or biases of the paper in the slightest.

By the way, the Mail generally does not reply to its readers' letters. Frequently, other contributors do, the letter creating new areas of discussion much like an internet forum (again, the newspaper-forum analogy seems fitting and correct).

[mortismurphy]

As an aside, i would make these same arguments in regards to "the other" sites who choose a less strict moderation policy. Thats their right, and they should ge allowed to disseminate any info they want, how they want, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Im a frequent lurker in many of them.

I would say those sites are more attuned, to the modern milieu. There is a reason nobody reads Pravda anymore.

[pilferk]

There's SO much "wrong" in your response (it's new age poppycock theory that tries to turn reality into some random magic think).....and I'll address each and every one of them when you address the one point you can't refute with something that makes sense.

It boils down, succinctly and completely, to this:

1) Jarmo owns HTGTH
2) jarmo has the right to moderate his construct any way he chooses.

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, you're wrong. 100% wrong.

If you agree...nothing you say has any bearing on anything, and you're just shouting into the storm. You're telling a business owner how to run his business...and you have no right to expect that he'll actually listen.  And thus...the entirety of your collection of points and logical fallicies is...pointless.

Which brings us right back to my original question...still not answered. Still not addressed. Still ignored.

Overcome that little nugget, or actually answer my original question, and I'll be back to continue.  Til you do....not one thing you're saying is actually worth addressing, anymore.

[pilferk]

I would say those sites are more attuned, to the modern milieu. There is a reason nobody reads Pravda anymore.

Great!  You should spend more time there, since those are your preferred type of constructs.  I'm glad you enjoy the way they run their sites.

[mortismurphy]

There's SO much "wrong" in your response (it's new age poppycock theory that tries to turn reality into some random magic think).....and I'll address each and every one of them when you address the one point you can't refute with something that makes sense.

It boils down, succinctly and completely, to this:

1) Jarmo owns HTGTH
2) jarmo has the right to moderate his construct any way he chooses.

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, you're wrong. 100% wrong.

If you agree...nothing you say has any bearing on anything, and you're just shouting into the storm. You're telling a business owner how to run his business...and you have no right to expect that he'll actually listen.  And thus...the entirety of your collection of points and logical fallicies is...pointless.

Which brings us right back to my original question...still not answered. Still not addressed. Still ignored.

Overcome that little nugget, or actually answer my original question, and I'll be back to continue.  Til you do....not one thing you're saying is actually worth addressing, anymore.

It is a fact too obvious to bother stating. I would not use your specific materialistic terminology (e.g. 'business owner'). I also find the internet much more nuanced than what you wish to portray, but, regardless, the answer is obviously, 'agree'. Jarmo has moderation authority based on his ownership of HTGTH.

Just to clarify, this is merely a discussion on why, I feel it is the wrong approach, and why we have had the anti-HTGTH diaspora we have had. It is a discussion. It is a mild diversion in my free time while I do other things. It is an academic argument on an area of interest. It is nothing more. I am not 'telling' Jarmo anything, and I am under no illusions that Jarmo would listen if I was. I am not 'shouting' at anything. We have had this similar misinterpretation in other ways. If you disagree with New guns, you clearly have ''personal problems'' and ''entitlement issues''. People seem to have problems comprehending the fact that people can have a discussion - an argument even - without it being this over zealous impassioned cause. Have a laugh. Take it on the chin.

[pilferk]

There's SO much "wrong" in your response (it's new age poppycock theory that tries to turn reality into some random magic think).....and I'll address each and every one of them when you address the one point you can't refute with something that makes sense.

It boils down, succinctly and completely, to this:

1) Jarmo owns HTGTH
2) jarmo has the right to moderate his construct any way he chooses.

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, you're wrong. 100% wrong.

If you agree...nothing you say has any bearing on anything, and you're just shouting into the storm. You're telling a business owner how to run his business...and you have no right to expect that he'll actually listen.  And thus...the entirety of your collection of points and logical fallicies is...pointless.

Which brings us right back to my original question...still not answered. Still not addressed. Still ignored.

Overcome that little nugget, or actually answer my original question, and I'll be back to continue.  Til you do....not one thing you're saying is actually worth addressing, anymore.

It is a fact too obvious to bother stating. I would not use your specific materialistic terminology (e.g. 'business owner'). I also find the internet much more nuanced than what you wish to portray, but, regardless, the answer is obviously, 'agree'. Jarmo has moderation authority based on his ownership of HTGTH.

Just to clarify, this is merely a discussion on why, I feel it is the wrong approach, and why we have had the anti-HTGTH diaspora we have had. It is a discussion. It is a mild diversion in my free time while I do other things. It is an academic argument on an area of interest. It is nothing more. I am not 'telling' Jarmo anything, and I am under no illusions that Jarmo would listen if I was. I am not 'shouting' at anything. We have had this similar misinterpretation in other ways. If you disagree with New guns, you clearly have ''personal problems'' and ''entitlement issues''. People seem to have problems comprehending the fact that people can have a discussion - an argument even - without it being this over zealous impassioned cause. Have a laugh. Take it on the chin.

Then..there you go.

And since you agree...and you acknowledge you're simply telling jarmo how best to run his construct/business (and, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, that's what it's recognized as, from a legal construct), and how YOU think he should do things....you've agreed with my overarching point, so there's really no sense in continuing our back and forth.  It's been my point since the beginning...and was the basis of my original question that hasn't really been addressed since I asked it.

Anyway, as you've pointed out...if nobody is interested in responding, it's just sort of a dead area of the internet. Right?

[jarmo]

Just to clarify, this is merely a discussion on why, I feel it is the wrong approach, and why we have had the anti-HTGTH diaspora we have had.

I can think of many reasons. I've seen people who claim to hate this site copy and paste things from here to other sites.

Just goes to show you what you're dealing with and why it's a waste of time to deal with.




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

There's SO much "wrong" in your response (it's new age poppycock theory that tries to turn reality into some random magic think).....and I'll address each and every one of them when you address the one point you can't refute with something that makes sense.

It boils down, succinctly and completely, to this:

1) Jarmo owns HTGTH
2) jarmo has the right to moderate his construct any way he chooses.

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, you're wrong. 100% wrong.

If you agree...nothing you say has any bearing on anything, and you're just shouting into the storm. You're telling a business owner how to run his business...and you have no right to expect that he'll actually listen.  And thus...the entirety of your collection of points and logical fallicies is...pointless.

Which brings us right back to my original question...still not answered. Still not addressed. Still ignored.

Overcome that little nugget, or actually answer my original question, and I'll be back to continue.  Til you do....not one thing you're saying is actually worth addressing, anymore.

It is a fact too obvious to bother stating. I would not use your specific materialistic terminology (e.g. 'business owner'). I also find the internet much more nuanced than what you wish to portray, but, regardless, the answer is obviously, 'agree'. Jarmo has moderation authority based on his ownership of HTGTH.

Just to clarify, this is merely a discussion on why, I feel it is the wrong approach, and why we have had the anti-HTGTH diaspora we have had. It is a discussion. It is a mild diversion in my free time while I do other things. It is an academic argument on an area of interest. It is nothing more. I am not 'telling' Jarmo anything, and I am under no illusions that Jarmo would listen if I was. I am not 'shouting' at anything. We have had this similar misinterpretation in other ways. If you disagree with New guns, you clearly have ''personal problems'' and ''entitlement issues''. People seem to have problems comprehending the fact that people can have a discussion - an argument even - without it being this over zealous impassioned cause. Have a laugh. Take it on the chin.

Then..there you go.

And since you agree...and you acknowledge you're simply telling jarmo how best to run his construct/business (and, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, that's what it's recognized as, from a legal construct), and how YOU think he should do things....you've agreed with my overarching point, so there's really no sense in continuing our back and forth.  It's been my point since the beginning...and was the basis of my original question that hasn't really been addressed since I asked it.

Anyway, as you've pointed out...if nobody is interested in responding, it's just sort of a dead area of the internet. Right?

I am not 'telling' anyone anything. I think you need a dictionary.

[pilferk]

I am not 'telling' anyone anything. I think you need a dictionary.

Or, you know...maybe you do.

verb (used with object), told, telling.
1.
to give an account or narrative of; narrate; relate (a story, tale, etc.):
to tell the story of Lincoln's childhood.
2.
to make known by speech or writing (a fact, news, information, etc.); communicate.
3.
to announce or proclaim.
4.
to utter (the truth, a lie, etc.).
5.
to express in words (thoughts, feelings, etc.).
6.
to reveal or divulge (something secret or private).
7.
to say plainly or positively:
I cannot tell just what was done.

You can try to wiggle all you want, but distilled down, it's exactly what you're doing.  And it obliterates any other points or fallacies you construct...to the point they're not worth discussing.

You can't get around it. Thus...

And now, the silence.  Feel free to have the last word.  You seem to badly need it.....

[mortismurphy]

I am not 'telling' anyone anything. I think you need a dictionary.

Or, you know...maybe you do.

verb (used with object), told, telling.
1.
to give an account or narrative of; narrate; relate (a story, tale, etc.):
to tell the story of Lincoln's childhood.
2.
to make known by speech or writing (a fact, news, information, etc.); communicate.
3.
to announce or proclaim.
4.
to utter (the truth, a lie, etc.).
5.
to express in words (thoughts, feelings, etc.).
6.
to reveal or divulge (something secret or private).
7.
to say plainly or positively:
I cannot tell just what was done.

You can try to wiggle all you want, but distilled down, it's exactly what you're doing.  And it obliterates any other points or fallacies you construct...to the point they're not worth discussing.

You can't get around it. Thus...

And now, the silence.  Feel free to have the last word.  You seem to badly need it.....

Have you noticed why there are seven connotations there? 5 most adequately describes what I have been doing. You have pulled a fast one there as, hitherto, your connotation of the word had a more imperative implication, perhaps best associated with 3. This is why I refuted its usage. Here is your former interpretation of the word,

you're simply telling jarmo how best to run his construct/business...and how YOU think he should do things..

This connotation has a forcefulness that mine did not possess.

[jarmo]

You know, looking at the topic... There's not a lot I can do about the forums and the Internet.... Sorry.




/jarmo

[Princess Leia]

Just to clarify, this is merely a discussion on why, I feel it is the wrong approach, and why we have had the anti-HTGTH diaspora we have had.

I can think of many reasons. I've seen people who claim to hate this site copy and paste things from here to other sites.

Just goes to show you what you're dealing with and why it's a waste of time to deal with.




/jarmo

Oh! I?d like to hear just 2 or 3 of those reasons please.

 Copy/paste from this site can mean many things. For example I could copy/past a RS magazine article. Well the article is from RS not this site. Another thing is copy/paste a comment you make in the forum. And yet another thing is just because people find an article or a picture useful doesn?t necessarily mean they love every single little thing about the site or the forum.

[jarmo]

Some reasons for negative comments:
People who got banned.
Silly forums wars.


No, I'm not talking about articles from other sources or anything that's available on the Internet.




/jarmo

[Princess Leia]

Some reasons for negative comments:
People who got banned.
Silly forums wars.


No, I'm not talking about articles from other sources or anything that's available on the Internet.




/jarmo

Let me see if I get this. If I make a negative comment about Axl or Fernando I get banned. However if I make a negative comment about Slash or Alan Niven I get an standing ovation. Is that how it works?

[jarmo]

No.

You'd like to think so, but that's not the case.
Better luck trying to get this in the future.

If you need any help, check out the board guidelines posted in this very section.



/jarmo

[Princess Leia]

No.

You'd like to think so, but that's not the case.
Better luck trying to get this in the future.

If you need any help, check out the board guidelines posted in this very section.



/jarmo

Well thank you for wishing me luck. I?m gonna try again. If Slash gets arrested for fighting in the street I?m gonna call him a fuckin moron. I would say the same about Axl in a similar situation. Is that ok or I have to say something like guys don?t do that again?

[jarmo]

You're welcome.
That kind of insults are pretty moronic themselves. They don't add anything to any discussion.

Edited to add: In your hypothetical scenario, I'm sure you aware of the fact that there's always more to the picture than meets the eye. 



/jarmo