Am I Right?

deleted.

deleted.

Was that the same as ...... 3 "crickets" in a row?

Welcome to the forum, 'prompter.

Thank you. I am the one I have been waiting for.

BMD left because Keli posted an image of Obama as a turd. I found that to be in poor taste too, however, no worse than BMD sporting a signature tag comparing Jesus Christ to a chimpanzee for months.

So are you comparing Obama to Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ to Obama?

I recall reading an article a couple of weeks ago about Obama being more popular than Jesus just a couple of weeks or so ago.

BMD had no regard for the members of this forum who view Christ as the savior. I don't think it's difficult to imagine how offensive comparing him to a chimp would be to people who share that belief. I pointed that out to him and suggested he remove it but he would not. Other members voiced opposition to it, he did not care.

When a forum member posted an image comparing Obama to a turd, bm got so upset he took his ball and went home. So what?

Should I have censored bm? Should I have prohibited his ability to post avatars? Or should I have banned him?

If I censored everyone who posted things somebody here finds offensive this forum would be vacant.

BMD had no regard for the members of this forum who view Christ as the savior. I don't think it's difficult to imagine how offensive comparing him to a chimp would be to people who share that belief.

So how is that particular "offensive" comparison any more offensive than the similarly offensive attacks- complete with cartoons and demeaning captions that Keli, for example, makes on various Democratic politicians and various unsavory Islamic personalities?

When Keli sets the standard here for political scorn and sacrilegious attacks, he and those who support him by their silence on his antics cannot fairly demand a higher standard from their political or religious antagonists like BMD nor anyone else.

As to this forum being "vacant", it nearly is so- and I think that various of the more unabashedly offending posters here like it that way. It allows them some perverted sense of victory at having driven away their political and /or religious ideological dissenters.

Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, Ziggy. You know that.

I would imagine to varying degrees Keli, Michael, Jimmy, Cato, Aaron and Sherm were offended by bm's antics. You didn't answer the question should I have censored him for his contemptuous disregard for the "feelings" of these members.

I want you to stop and think about the many times Keli has posted material that I found offensive. Think about some of the really vicious comments he has made about Muslims. Everyone here knows how offensive I find that kind of stereotyping. I have pointed out just how "un-Christian" his posts are. We have argued and debated but I have never censored him either.

This is a group of adults, although too frequently a good case could be made that the members behave like middle school adolescents. There are no children to protect. There are no victims here. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion there is only one member of this forum that a reasonable person could ever consider as having been "victimized" in this forum. That would be Keli. To this day I consider it an enormous violation of his privacy that Craig used Keli's image as an avatar in this forum without his permission. That behavior I don't believe should be tolerated.

So who do you think should be the judge of what is offensive and what is not offensive? Should I delete every post that rubs me the wrong way? Should I suspend members when they call me "sleazy" or tell me to "shove 'my' forum"? Should I delete every post where I'm referred to as a "right-wing whacko"?

I'm sorry but "Keli did it first" and "Sam does it worse" are not justification for punishing them but letting others get away with that crap.

I'm a big believer in leading by example. I am far from innocent. The worse thing I ever posted imho you immediately chastized me for. I'm sure you remember the incident between me and Aaron. So I apologize for falling short of perfection. However, I do not apologize for my great love of freedom of expression and for creating a venue for a small group of people to enjoy that liberty without fear of constant censorship.

I would imagine to varying degrees Keli, Michael, Jimmy, Cato, Aaron and Sherm were offended by bm's antics. You didn't answer the question should I have censored him for his contemptuous disregard for the "feelings" of these members.

I am not sure what you mean by "censor". But my answer is, no, not unless you "censor" Keli for his similar such conduct.

Why fight this battle? What will you do if you win?

How do I determine if I've "won"?

Freedom of expression is sacrosanct.

If that cannot be extended to that speech that we find repulsive then it doesn't exist at all.

Freedom of speech means freedom to be offensive, or even an outright ass, or it doesn't mean anything at all.

Those who would like to deny it are wrong, and set a dangerous standard.

Yesterday I had dinner with a dear friend, an atheist and a Marxist. I really enjoyed it, and we traded thoughts on why Mexico is having it's problems with the drug cartels. Neither of us feel compelled to be offensive or rude, but neither do we pretend not to believe in what we believe.

It is always worthwhile to have a spirited debate and it is always worthwhile to have a high standard in doing so. However, and this cannot be emphasized enough, freedom of speech must prevail. I have tolerated outright blasphemy on this forum and I have never once so much as asked that it be censored, even though I find it so very repulsive.

That is what "tolerance" really is, supporting the freedoms of those with whom you disagree.

That is what "tolerance" really is, supporting the freedoms of those with whom you disagree.

I hope willy is reading this...

Well Terry freedoms will often come into conflict with the freedoms of others.

You have the freedom of a property owner to use the property as he sees fit with the freedom of a particular person to have access to that property. The two freedoms are in conflict.

Obviously "freedom" is never universal, as in my point that I am not "free" to eat at Spago's or buy a house in South Hills.

Well said, Michael. Thank you.