Re: OT - Mableton Doctor Makes a Stand for Free Speech

John wrote: 
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:45:38 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


John wrote:

"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


John wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Jason wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Jason wrote:


"Fox" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Fox" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote


Why doesn't he use another usenet provider that anonymises his postings, I wonder....

Nevermind the above. I just realised that this has something to do with him being "openly Christian", as he claims. Unfortunately his ISP wasn't as forgiving as s.m.c. :-(

Hello, If he arranged to get a new ISP, it should solve his problem. I don't now why his present ISP does not allow its customers to have "freedom of speech". Perhaps Dr. Chung should file a lawsuit against his present ISP for violating his freedom of speech. 

They didn't violate his freedom of speech.

And parenthetically, freedom of speech doesn't mean people can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, to whomever they want. The classic example is shouting "fire" in a theater. But there are many more injunctions in daily service, some written and some unwritten, which, when violated, incur penalties. This case
with Chung is one example.

He violated the terms of the agreement he made with them when he signed on. It's called "terms of service." They said, in effect, you can't behave in that fashion here. It wasn't about speech, it was about adhering to the conditions established and agreed to at the beginning of the relationship between Chung and his ISP. Same as behaving badly, contrary to house and societal rules, in a saloon. They call the bouncers and throw you out. Your right to free speech hasn't been abridged. Merely the privilege of doing it there. Note the difference between a right and a privilege.

ISPs are companies; commercial enterprises. They're under no obligation to provide anyone an uncontrolled forum to do
as they please. Freedom of speech is a governmental question. Not a commercial one.

Pastorio

Pastorio, You made some great points. Would you agree that the best solution is for Dr. Chung to get a new ISP that has a different set of rules?

No. I would say that Chung's goals are the important ones in this question. The options include getting a new ISP, but they also include never posting again. And everything between.


That's what I would do if I was in his shoes. I should note that I see posts in various news groups related to religion on a regular basis. There was a recent thread in a medical newsgroup related to creation/evolution. How could anyone discuss that issue without discussing God?

A thread or two or a topic or two represent a very different condition than what Chung has created here. *Every* Chung post has an absurd sig file that goes on and on and is abrasive proselytizing. He attacks people with his "love" of Jesus. Those macros he posted so many times and the "holler at the guy
who didn't ask me not to crosspost this" shitheadedness probably talk more to what he was cut off for. The subject is off topic and against the TOS of his ISP and so is the tactic.

Discussing God is off topic, but I guess, is ok on a limited basis. Like discussing Formula 1 racing would be ok if one thread appeared or grew out of another thread. But making it a regular, constant, unavoidable component of the business of the
group is to force the whole group into divided camps and
divert the group from the actual core discussion topics.

Its a very simple matter to discuss evolution/creation without mentioning God. For one thing, it's a discussion of mechanics and the name of the mechanic is irrelevant. For another, creationism is nonsense. Like Intelligent design is nonsense. Neither has the remotest support in empirical data. Neither offers real explanation of evolutionary processes - for which there's a huge amount of evidence. And both offer impossibilities like the flood and a whole string of untestable/unfalsifiable conclusions. Finally, both are copouts
for any real explanation of processes and products. Pointing
to what the current thinking in evolutionary knowledge lacks,
as though those gaps negate the entire rest of the vast body of
information, is all the apologists of either of those views
can base their attacks on. It's simplistic and an evasion to
say, "It's all God's design" with no proof. And there's no
proof.

So God only needs to be mentioned once. 

So why did you find it necessary to say "God" three times in the
above?

"John," if you actually have something to say, why not try saying it? And if all you've got is these cramped bumper sticker drive-bys, maybe you could stick them up your computer.

If you catch my drift.

Yes, I catch your drift. You concede the correctness of my post by failing to argue against it. 

One doesn't argue against an unintentional fart. One doesn't argue
against a nosebleed. One doesn't argue against the functioning of an
idiot. One simply notes the inconvenience, if one, and moves on to
questions that require thought. If failing to argue against the blurted
belches of fools like you means they're correct, then the world would be
overrun with "correct" belches...

If you capture the drift of this one better than you did the last.

Curiously, you seem to be spending a lot of text on arguing the
unintentional fart.

<LOL> That big putty nose goes very well with the huge red wig. And the floppy shoes... to die for. Oh! What's that brrrrrrrrappp noise coming from you...

Unfortunately, you utterly fail to come to grips
with the issues you raised and the flaws I pointed out in them.

Poor "John." There are no issues to grip. So with no issues, there aren't any flaws. You've been thoroughly overwhelmed and may go now.

Here's the subject:
"The single mention of God is that he can be invoked only once. To assert God as creator means that there can be no further discussion of the subject because it forecloses the prospect of reason, evidence and
disagreement. It's a binary system."

See the subject now?

Perhaps because you can't and you know it?

<LOL> "John," you make it very clear why you think this way a little later on...

Let's recap.  You said that it should only be necessary to mention
God once in a discussion of evolution/creation but then failed to
demonstrate that by doing it yourself.


And, literalist buffoon that you are, took it to mean the literal
number. The actual point is that referencing God can only happen in one
context, one setting, one viewpoint. You're so obsessed with finding
something to pick at with me that you'll take any chance, no matter how
slim, to try to do it.

No, it is because it is so easy to do I can't help myself.

Sure. Not being able to help oneself is a wonderful, positive virtue. Not. Pity you do this picking so poorly.

But, once again, you bypass the salient point to bloviate. Did you, again, miss what the notion of a single reference to God when discussing evolution means? Here. Let me repeat it right below for you.

The single mention of God is that he can be invoked only once. To assert
God as creator means that there can be no further discussion of the
subject because it forecloses the prospect of reason, evidence and
disagreement. It's a binary system.

You seem to be making an entirely new point now.

Nah. It's been the point all along. Just that it whoooooshed over your head. Who's surprised? Hands...?

Unfortunately, it's incomprehensible.

And this is why you think I haven't dealt with your verbal flatulence. You just don't get it.

It's incomprehensible *to you*. It's actually a very simple idea. In any conversation about the physical universe and its workings, to invoke divinity stops the conversation right there. Mentioning it *once* takes it out of the realm of testable conditions. Means that there's nothing more to say. We've moved from the realm of scientific discussion to fairy tales. End of conversation. Once did it.

I pointed out this problem. You bluster in response. I win.

This winning thing seems to be terribly important to you. Is it that you don't often win in the real world and are compensating? So needy...

Hey, everybody a group hug for "John." {{{{{{{{{"John"}}}}}}}}}

Feel better now...?

Funny thing how fundie "John" lets the issue of evolution/creation go by
to seize on a non-issue just to try to troll. Lets a discussion of free speech go by after making bonehead assertions.

Now let's watch "John" blow right by the important stuff to go for the diversion.

You think I'm a fundie? On what basis?

POW. Right past it. <LOL> Nothing about evolution, nothing about free speech. It's all about "John."

All the belligerent religious twaddle you've posted in the past and stuff like this, below, that you posted in the past few minutes to another note in a different thread expressing less than a positive view of God. Typically, you bloviate there, too.

"You seem to be having difficulty becoming resolved with the fact of
your own mortality. In fact, somewhere between 50 and 100 million
people die every year from entirely natural causes. How about them
apples. Nevertheless, I consider my life, however long it may be, a
wonderful blessing from God. At my life's end, I expect to achieve
everlasting life through Christ Jesus. You can too. Nevertheless, I consider my life, however long it may be, a wonderful blessing from God. At my life's end, I expect to achieve everlasting life through Christ Jesus. You can too."

You think I'm against the
Theory of Evolution? On what basis? Fact is, I'm agnostic about
this. Whether Darwin is right or not in no way affects my religious
faith.

I'm happy for you. But it doesn't really matter and it doesn't alter your hyperreligious words in the past and today. And finally, who cares? If you offered considered thoughts and balanced, well-developed ideas maybe people would talk with you; engage you in discourse. And maybe pigs are going to start flying.

<LOL> Sure you win, "John."

No, seriously... 

You now seem to be contesting your previous implicit concession.  Too
bad - you still lose.

Nah. <LOL> It's just sarcasm, slow-boy; means the opposite of what the words would seem to mean. It's a more adult sort of humor than you seem to be able to handle. Lord knows there were enough clues.

There was no implicit or explicit concession. It was precisely the opposite. Why do you need these elementary explanations? You're just as full of crap as usual and as dense as usual. Good to see things going along unchanged. And I hope you win at *something* today. Seems so important in your universe.

Also funny is how Chung disappears and so does "John." Chung gets a new
ISP and - Holy crap - "John" magically reappears. Did I say "holy crap?"
I meant just plain crap.

I was wondering how long it would take you to get around to the "sock"
acquisition. 

"acquisition...?" Did you lose your dictionary again?

Fact is that my recent postings correlate most strongly
with your own recent postings of crap. 

<LOL> All it takes to make things into facts is to post them, right "John."

Blessings,
John


Likewise, I'm sure.

Pastorio
.

Quantcast