FREE SPEECH ON FORUMS

[Ellio]

What happened to free speech?

Ken just locked down the OnlineTV thread just after I made a sensible post highlighting why the site is still banned.

Ken just because a few people disagree with you its no reason to act like dictator - this is Google forum and a number of readers are going to be left clueless by your actions.

[greeneagle]

Ellio,

I appreciate your contribution there. It was well stated and stated and stated and stated again throughout the thread...

The thread was going no where and had degenerated quite severely.

The originator was not responding to advice given here or in the other forums he has been posting the same issue in:
http://www.davidcastle.org/BB/viewtopic.php?t=929&start=0

The initiator isn't being screwed by GOOGLE, is combatitive and incommunicative in more than one Forum and I stand by my decision.

There was no reason to try and initiate a "Free Speech" referendum in a new post here.

Free speech doesn't allow a false "Fire Call" in a crowded theatre, even in the US, and definitely doesn't need to happen at WPW either.

The offer stands for anyone who wants to PM me something... anything that is truly pertinant to promoting that thread! It's that easy to reopen!

Ken

[Ellio]

There was no reason to try and initiate a "Free Speech" referendum in a new post here.

I wasn't.

I personally totally disagree with everything OnlineTV said but its a forum and you do not have to contribute or follow the thread if you do not want to....

[greeneagle]

Believe me Ellio, I am completely open to reopening the thread if anyone PMs me a good case... something that will move it on along in a positive and productive path!

In fact let's post the thread link here so that anyone coming into this thread can follow it. (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=54049&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0)

Ken

[janeth]

Believe me Ellio, I am completely open to reopening the thread if anyone PMs me a good case... something that will move it on along in a positive and productive path!

In fact let's post the thread link here so that anyone coming into this thread can follow it. (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=54049&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0)

Ken

If people are enjoying the debate and no flamming is going on why would you lock it anyway?

And why should we have to write you and beg you to reopen a thread that should have never been locked?

[greeneagle]

Janeth,

I'll reopen it right now if you go back, understand what is going on there and offer something useful to promote that thread!

There is no reason to keep a thread open just for argument's sake, especially when it seems to be just self promotional.

Have you read through the thread and the similar one at the link provided on David Castle's forum yet?

Ken

[ADAM Web Design]

First of all, before anyone says anything about my motives, I quite often find myself respectfully disagreeing with Ken on things. We have two pretty ebullient personalities and sometimes they clash.

I would also like to say that I am a proponent of free speech...to a point.

The point, on that thread, had been reached far too long ago when it had deteriorated into a "I'm banned, Google's wrong, he's flaming, she's spamming, you're wrong, no you're wrong" type of a thing. I had to stop reading it because it hurt my head.

So, since no one else will support Ken's decision, I will. Ken's not one to lock a thread, even if someone disagrees with him, without sufficient justification and he's more than got it in this case.

So I'm with you, dude.

[janeth]

Lets understand a couple things.

1. You gave bad unformation and I pointed it out.

2. I could care less rather you open it back or not.

3. I do not have to read the whole thread to make a post.

4. You were the only one with a problem because I asked a question you refused to answer.

5. The only out of place comments being made where by you that I ignored.

[greeneagle]

Janeth,

If you will be so kind as to cite the issues for those 5 points, I'll be happy to rectify everything left "hanging"!

Ken

[google junky]

The point, on that thread, had been reached far too long ago when it had deteriorated into a "I'm banned, Google's wrong, he's flaming, she's spamming, you're wrong, no you're wrong" type of a thing. I had to stop reading it because it hurt my head.

I completely agree with this quote.
Continuation of the topic started there only degrates the worthiness and usefulness of wpw forums.
It was simply spinning its wheels with no results being precieved by the original poster.
I have no more to add to this. The topic is not worth another post.

[Ellio]

Ken, Adam and all,

I started this thread as I wanted to ensure that the behind the scenes reader of the onlinetv thread was not left in any doubt that simply because google return their "auto" response to a non-listed domain it does not mean that its about to be indexed.

I did not feel that this was fully acknowledged before you shut it down. I like most others I suspect simply ignored and L.O.L at the "rather odd" posts from online tv.

It was quite entertaining really.

[janeth]

1. You gave bad unformation and I pointed it out.

You made the comment ( please understand I do not know the poster ) that the poster was a blog spammer because he owned more then one domain name. There was never any research done which would leave me to believe that anyone that has more then one domian name is a blog spammer. Is this correct or between the minutes of my post showing you that the owner had more then one domain name and your post that this makes him a blog spammer was there research done?

2. I could care less rather you open it back or not.

This member has nothing to do with me and I really could care less if you open the thread or not.

3. I do not have to read the whole thread to make a post.

Can you show me in the rules where I must read every post and word in a thread before I'm able to post?

4. You were the only one with a problem because I asked a question you refused to answer.

This is plan to see by your locking the thread.

5. The only out of place comments being made where by you that I ignored.

[greeneagle]

Janeth,

You still didn't cite any examples to substantiate your claims.

Ken

[janeth]

I'm not going to go round and round with you on this Ken. Everyone is welcome to look at the old thread and they can see what I'm talking about.

[greeneagle]

That's OK Janeth, I am tired of dancing anyway!

I really need to get back to my little non-competitive world and take care of my multi-million dollar non-competitive clients. I need to wrap the month, do executive reviews and help with 2006 Marketing Budget Projections.

LOL

Ken

[mike]

Well, as a matter of fact, the thing was looking like it had pretty much run it's course. I don't think Ken jumped the gun really in this case. Things were getting a little too close to personal in the end and that doesnt serve any purpose really.

If there is new material or thoughts/theories relevent to the subject at hand, start a new thread. Ken didn't ditch the thread altogether. It's still available for any and all to see. If worthwhile issues and questions result from that thread feel free to start a new thread on said issues.

I do agree with the decision to lock that one down however.