Welcome back declaremer.

Good to read some more good writing again. :)

The problem with the book bannings/burnings were they are always held by some religious themed organization or one with ties to it. It's usually the "puritans" of most religious that want to shield your eyes from the naughty, even when they can't describe the naughty.

It reminds me of what this judge said about pornography.

---

To the lay public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[9]

Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[9] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

---

Originally posted by popinjay

Welcome back declaremer.

Good to read some more good writing again. :)

 

The problem with the book bannings/burnings were they are always held by some religious themed organization or one with ties to it. It's usually the "puritans" of most religious that want to shield your eyes from the naughty, even when they can't describe the naughty.

 

It reminds me of what this judge said about pornography.

 

---

 

To the lay public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[9]

Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[9] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

 

---

 

the Nazis and the Communists destroyed and censored people because of a religion? Now, I know, I've made the case at times where both are sort of religions, just as I have said that your Caesar worship amounts to a religion, but really...to say book burnings are even MOSTLY religious is silly.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by deviliscious

That one video you posted about that chic ranting about Bank of AMerica doesn;t realize that  it is out of Bank Of America's hands, yes, she had a reasonable interest rate when they were calling the shots.. THEY AREN:T CALLING THE SHOTS ANYMORE. That is what happend when the FEDS strongarm, KEN LEWIS WAS THREATENED. He doesn;t have a choice in any of this, that is why she got the response she did from them, they are powerless, yet they are going to take it out on the bank.
 

Fed chief Bernanke and Paulson threatened Bank of America officials

I have friends that were there. YES, I knew about this from day one,  The people reporting otherwise are LYING.

AS some may remember back when this happened , I posted the information the day the merger was discussed, before the NEWS said anything about this,

The banks are being taken over, people think the banks have any say right now, and the truth is they don't. They can;t give credit now because there is no credit to give thanks to our government. BOA was in the green and would still be in  the green if it were not for them being THREATENED by the FEDS. You either play ball or you don;t play at all is the new laws of our land.

Ken spoke up, I am sure he is on the chopping block now that he went public. It is sad too, he is actually a nice guy.

 

Every leftist here thinks that fascism is the corporations controlling the government, what they do not realize is that is backwards -- it is the government controlling the corporations. The corporations can ONLY BRIBE. The government has the guns. Forget rock paper scissors. It is guns people money.

The government and the elites fool the people into hating the corporations, as if they had anything to do with free markets, the corporations bribe the government for special favors. This leads to economic crisis after economic crisis -- each time the people demand the men with the GUNS to fix what the men with the money are doing, because remember we gave the men with the guns our education system long ago.

So, the people hand everything over to the government never realizing how they have been had by their own ignorance.

However, like rock paper scissors it is the PEOPLE who can take the power from the people with the guns. Any time they want to.

What we are seeing today in the tea party movement is the people both waking up and hitting the snooze button. I truly hope they wake up.

 

 

 

The worst part of it is if you don't play ball you get chopped... Look at what is happening to Ken because he told the truth. I expect in the comming months they will try to discredit him since he has now broken the " circle of trust". He really is a nice guy and it is sad. That is what happens to you when you tell the truth. Honesty means nothing anymore.

Actually it means a great deal. It means you are an enemy of the status quo.

The new way of the new left is "conformity uber alles."

Originally posted by popinjay

Welcome back declaremer.

Good to read some more good writing again. :)

 

The problem with the book bannings/burnings were they are always held by some religious themed organization or one with ties to it. It's usually the "puritans" of most religious that want to shield your eyes from the naughty, even when they can't describe the naughty.

 

It reminds me of what this judge said about pornography.

 

---

 

To the lay public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[9]

Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[9] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

 

---

 

This is why we need to start taxing the hell out of all religions on the US. Maybe they would think twice about getting all cultish when the IRS is breathing down their necks.

librorum prohibitorum
detail

constantine (274-337ad) emp 306, council nicea 325, council of rome 382 promulgated canon, formal canon 397 cathage, transformed catholic ch into imperial christanity (rcc);
that the legal imposition of a 'canon' or 'rule' upon scripture was a fourth - and fifth-century phenomenon enforced with the power of the Roman imperial government;
and that the political forces shaping the New Testament (nt) canon are much earlier than the second-century crisis occasioned by Marcion.

The following are the Imperial edicts launched against Manichæism: Diocletian (Alexandria, 31 March, 296) commands the Proconsul of Africa to persecute them, he speaks of them as a sordid and impure sect recently come from Persia, which he is determined to destroy root and branch (stirpitus amputari.)
Its leaders and propagators must be burnt, together with their books; the rank and file beheaded, people of note condemned to the mines, and their goods confiscated. This edict remained at least nominally in force underConstantine, and Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Manichæism seems to have been tolerated.
Valentinian I and Gratian, though tolerant of other sects, made exception of the Manichæans. Theodosius I, by an edict of 381, declared Manichæans to be without civil rights and incapable of testamentary disposition. In the following year he condemned them to death under the name of Encratites, Saccophores, and Hydroparastates.
Valentinian II confiscated their goods, annulled their wills, and sent them into exile. Honorius in 405 renewed the edicts of his predecessors, and fined all governors of cities or provinces who were remiss in carrying out his orders; he invalidated all their contracts, declared them outlaws and public criminals.
In 445 Valentinian III renewed the edicts of his predecessors; Anastasius condemned all Manichæans to death; Justin and Justinian decreed the death penalty, not only against Manichæans who remained obstinate in their heresy, but even against converts from Manichæism who remained in touch with their former co-religionists, or who did not at once denounce them to the magistrates.
Heavy penalties were likewise decreed against all State officials who did not denounce their colleagues, if infected with Manichæism, and against all those who retained Manichæan books. It was a war of extermination and was apparently successful, within the confines of the Byzantine Empire.

The rcc's nihilistic corrosive effects (eventually) destroy moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitated the greatest crisis in western history, their fabricated latin-only nt...
who's cherished beliefs and sacrosanct rituals/traditions are symptoms of a defective (Western) mythos.
saul's epistemological repudiations and imposed values were necessarily false when truth and reason are baseless facades in a transitory mortal hedonistic existance, where everything deserves to perish.

'THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPRESS A VIEWPOINT UNLESS IT IS TRUE, because a false viewpoint can easily be combatted with facts and logic, while truth cannot be combatted except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation' John Bryant
Nazis never supported capitalism. In its simplest form (NSDP) it is simply about doing what is best for your people's gene pool. Secondarily, it is about doing what is best for the culture that supports that gene pool.

Arrogant banalization and absurdity triumph when the nt is the illusion, invented meaning, hopeful expectations, to make sense of the world; dismisses knowledge and self-reflection for more palatable relativistic "legitimized" claims;
ancestor veneration/relics; ameliorated scripture; people protect their god(s);
the nt is the main reservoir for the disease known as carrier-saul's unsanitary dictums/dogma spreading resistance to the paramount worship of G by mutilating the teachings of Messiah, a symptom of the acute chronic illness... failure to worship G !

Originally posted by billie

librorum prohibitorum
detail

constantine (274-337ad) emp 306, council nicea 325, council of rome 382 promulgated canon, formal canon 397 cathage, transformed catholic ch into imperial christanity (rcc);
that the legal imposition of a 'canon' or 'rule' upon scripture was a fourth - and fifth-century phenomenon enforced with the power of the Roman imperial government;
and that the political forces shaping the New Testament (nt) canon are much earlier than the second-century crisis occasioned by Marcion.

The following are the Imperial edicts launched against Manichæism: Diocletian (Alexandria, 31 March, 296) commands the Proconsul of Africa to persecute them, he speaks of them as a sordid and impure sect recently come from Persia, which he is determined to destroy root and branch (stirpitus amputari.)
Its leaders and propagators must be burnt, together with their books; the rank and file beheaded, people of note condemned to the mines, and their goods confiscated. This edict remained at least nominally in force underConstantine, and Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Manichæism seems to have been tolerated.
Valentinian I and Gratian, though tolerant of other sects, made exception of the Manichæans. Theodosius I, by an edict of 381, declared Manichæans to be without civil rights and incapable of testamentary disposition. In the following year he condemned them to death under the name of Encratites, Saccophores, and Hydroparastates.
Valentinian II confiscated their goods, annulled their wills, and sent them into exile. Honorius in 405 renewed the edicts of his predecessors, and fined all governors of cities or provinces who were remiss in carrying out his orders; he invalidated all their contracts, declared them outlaws and public criminals.
In 445 Valentinian III renewed the edicts of his predecessors; Anastasius condemned all Manichæans to death; Justin and Justinian decreed the death penalty, not only against Manichæans who remained obstinate in their heresy, but even against converts from Manichæism who remained in touch with their former co-religionists, or who did not at once denounce them to the magistrates.
Heavy penalties were likewise decreed against all State officials who did not denounce their colleagues, if infected with Manichæism, and against all those who retained Manichæan books. It was a war of extermination and was apparently successful, within the confines of the Byzantine Empire.

The rcc's nihilistic corrosive effects (eventually) destroy moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitated the greatest crisis in western history, their fabricated latin-only nt...
who's cherished beliefs and sacrosanct rituals/traditions are symptoms of a defective (Western) mythos.
saul's epistemological repudiations and imposed values were necessarily false when truth and reason are baseless facades in a transitory mortal hedonistic existance, where everything deserves to perish.

 

'THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPRESS A VIEWPOINT UNLESS IT IS TRUE, because a false viewpoint can easily be combatted with facts and logic, while truth cannot be combatted except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation' John Bryant
Nazis never supported capitalism. In its simplest form (NSDP) it is simply about doing what is best for your people's gene pool. Secondarily, it is about doing what is best for the culture that supports that gene pool.

Arrogant banalization and absurdity triumph when the nt is the illusion, invented meaning, hopeful expectations, to make sense of the world; dismisses knowledge and self-reflection for more palatable relativistic "legitimized" claims;
ancestor veneration/relics; ameliorated scripture; people protect their god(s);
the nt is the main reservoir for the disease known as carrier-saul's unsanitary dictums/dogma spreading resistance to the paramount worship of G by mutilating the teachings of Messiah, a symptom of the acute chronic illness... failure to worship G !
 

Billie that was deep..if you don't mind me asking what is your profession.
 

To hear you tell it, Melvil Dewey must be the antichrist.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 
the Nazis and the Communists destroyed and censored people because of a religion? Now, I know, I've made the case at times where both are sort of religions, just as I have said that your Caesar worship amounts to a religion, but really...to say book burnings are even MOSTLY religious is silly.

---

I guess it would be silly if someone only had a frame of reference that only went back to the turn of this century.

I on the other hand, and using the whole of history. Even before the Guttenberg press was invented. I think you need to open your mind a bit; it's a bit narrow if all you can come up with is Nazis and Commies.

Try the Catholic church centuries ago. Try the Puritans. Try the Romans. Perhaps I shouldn't say it "always" is religious. But it certainly is most of the time throughout history. And they usually are burned for some religious reasonings; either the people burning them are religious and don't want that idea spread about non-religiion, or the people burning them are non-religious and don't want religious ideologies spread. Most times it appears, its the religious who do the burning when they run out of witches.

But here: here's some info for you to look at.

Book burnings

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 
the Nazis and the Communists destroyed and censored people because of a religion? Now, I know, I've made the case at times where both are sort of religions, just as I have said that your Caesar worship amounts to a religion, but really...to say book burnings are even MOSTLY religious is silly.

---

 

I guess it would be silly if someone only had a frame of reference that only went back to the turn of this century.

 

I on the other hand, and using the whole of history. Even before the Guttenberg press was invented. I think you need to open your mind a bit; it's a bit narrow if all you can come up with is Nazis and Commies.

 

 

Try the Catholic church centuries ago. Try the Puritans. Try the Romans. Perhaps I shouldn't say it "always" is religious. But it certainly is most of the time throughout history. And they usually are burned for some religious reasonings; either the people burning them are religious and don't want that idea spread about non-religiion, or the people burning them are non-religious and don't want religious ideologies spread. Most times it appears, its the religious who do the burning when they run out of witches.

 

But here: here's some info for you to look at.

 

Book burnings

Ah the return of your childish behavior. Read what YOU wrote, and edited out of the chain to hide the context. YOU said they are ALWAYS religious, I said they are not. You are wrong. They are not. You then responded with something we both know and a childish attack -- that before the advent of many of today's secular political ideologies, book burnings WERE  mostly religious. That has nothing to do with what you said.

Whether throughout history or even today MOST book burnings are the product of religious zeal is irrelevant.

The discussion is of book burnings today. You shifted context so you could drag things into the schoolyard. Grow up, please.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 
the Nazis and the Communists destroyed and censored people because of a religion? Now, I know, I've made the case at times where both are sort of religions, just as I have said that your Caesar worship amounts to a religion, but really...to say book burnings are even MOSTLY religious is silly.

---

 

I guess it would be silly if someone only had a frame of reference that only went back to the turn of this century.

 

I on the other hand, and using the whole of history. Even before the Guttenberg press was invented. I think you need to open your mind a bit; it's a bit narrow if all you can come up with is Nazis and Commies.

 

 

Try the Catholic church centuries ago. Try the Puritans. Try the Romans. Perhaps I shouldn't say it "always" is religious. But it certainly is most of the time throughout history. And they usually are burned for some religious reasonings; either the people burning them are religious and don't want that idea spread about non-religiion, or the people burning them are non-religious and don't want religious ideologies spread. Most times it appears, its the religious who do the burning when they run out of witches.

 

But here: here's some info for you to look at.

 

Book burnings

 

Ah the return of your childish behavior. Read what YOU wrote, and edited out of the chain to hide the context. YOU said they are ALWAYS religious, I said they are not. You are wrong. They are not. You then responded with something we both know and a childish attack -- that before the advent of many of today's secular political ideologies, book burnings WERE  mostly religious. That has nothing to do with what you said.

Whether throughout history or even today MOST book burnings are the product of religious zeal is irrelevant.

The discussion is of book burnings today. You shifted context so you could drag things into the schoolyard. Grow up, please.

You guys are offtopic and are derailing this protest so please stop this.

The dicussion is that the OP seems to be insinuating that burning, banning, and censorship is akin to the mods creating the Religion & Politics tab here at MMORPG.

He used book burning because it's the most extreme case, and as we all know, many of the folks here are alarmists.

Personally, I think he has a minor point that could easily be fixed by placing all the other off topic threads under a general off topic pub tab.  I say minor point because enough people in the off topic section have complained about the religon and politics threads over the years that they needed to be separated from the general off topic chatter, oddly enough, some of the people that have posted in this thread were the biggest complainers.  His point seems to be that if you're not specifically looking for the Religon & Politics thread you probably are not going to click on it and therefor, it can be considered a type censorship where information is segregated away from a larger audience.

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 
the Nazis and the Communists destroyed and censored people because of a religion? Now, I know, I've made the case at times where both are sort of religions, just as I have said that your Caesar worship amounts to a religion, but really...to say book burnings are even MOSTLY religious is silly.

---

 

I guess it would be silly if someone only had a frame of reference that only went back to the turn of this century.

 

I on the other hand, and using the whole of history. Even before the Guttenberg press was invented. I think you need to open your mind a bit; it's a bit narrow if all you can come up with is Nazis and Commies.

 

 

Try the Catholic church centuries ago. Try the Puritans. Try the Romans. Perhaps I shouldn't say it "always" is religious. But it certainly is most of the time throughout history. And they usually are burned for some religious reasonings; either the people burning them are religious and don't want that idea spread about non-religiion, or the people burning them are non-religious and don't want religious ideologies spread. Most times it appears, its the religious who do the burning when they run out of witches.

 

But here: here's some info for you to look at.

 

Book burnings

 

Ah the return of your childish behavior. Read what YOU wrote, and edited out of the chain to hide the context. YOU said they are ALWAYS religious, I said they are not. You are wrong. They are not. You then responded with something we both know and a childish attack -- that before the advent of many of today's secular political ideologies, book burnings WERE  mostly religious. That has nothing to do with what you said.

Whether throughout history or even today MOST book burnings are the product of religious zeal is irrelevant.

The discussion is of book burnings today. You shifted context so you could drag things into the schoolyard. Grow up, please.

 

You guys are offtopic and are derailing this protest so please stop this.

The dicussion is that the OP seems to be insinuating that burning, banning, and censorship is akin to the mods creating the Religion & Politics tab here at MMORPG.

He used book burning because it's the most extreme case, and as we all know, many of the folks here are alarmists.

Personally, I think he has a minor point that could easily be fixed by placing all the other off topic threads under a general off topic pub tab.  I say minor point because enough people in the off topic section have complained about the religon and politics threads over the years that they needed to be separated from the general off topic chatter, oddly enough, some of the people that have posted in this thread were the biggest complainers.  His point seems to be that if you're not specifically looking for the Religon & Politics thread you probably are not going to click on it and therefor, it can be considered a type censorship where information is segregated away from a larger audience.

Point taken; I humbly apologize.

To return to the topic, I just would have removed moderation from the entire OT forum. That would have sufficed.

Centuries-old book burning rituals, today, would not be effective except for their symbolic value.  The internet is not, and cannot be considered, a sanctuary from censorship.  It is interesting that someone mentioned Google Books as the prime library for a generation who learns almost exclusively from the internet   I made a Topic in December of 2008 (Do You Trust Google? www.mpog.com/discussion2.cfm).  Google Books could become the ultimate internet library and with a generation of people totally changing how they learn, access information, browse titles, and read books -  this power is to not be underestimated.  Google Books could censor in various ways such as limiting access to some books, removing other books totally from the index, charging more for different subscriptions, and so forth. 

Worse, as it has done with Youtube, you could see Turkish and Chinese government (not people) values being expressed in Google's policies of access and expression.  Even Michelle Malkin was censored by Google.  Since there are no agreeable standards by which books or posts ought to be burned (removed from the index), the power lies with Google Books.  It also lies with web page moderators.

Similar to how MMORPG has imposed this bizarre and unworkable segregation, would Google Books do something that foolish as well?  Its history with Youtube is quite telling. 

Originally posted by declaredemer

Centuries-old book burning rituals, today, would not be effective except for their symbolic value.  The internet is not, and cannot be considered, a sanctuary from censorship.  It is interesting that someone mentioned Google Books as the prime library for a generation who learns almost exclusively from the internet   I made a Topic in December of 2008 (Do You Trust Google? www.mpog.com/discussion2.cfm).  Google Books could become the ultimate internet library and with a generation of people totally changing how they learn, access information, browse titles, and read books -  this power is to not be underestimated.  Google Books could censor in various ways such as limiting access to some books, removing other books totally from the index, charging more for different subscriptions, and so forth. 

 

 

Worse, as it has done with Youtube, you could see Turkish and Chinese government (not people) values being expressed in Google's policies of access and expression.  Even Michelle Malkin was censored by Google.  Since there are no agreeable standards by which books or posts ought to be burned (removed from the index), the power lies with Google Books.  It also lies with web page moderators.

 

 

Similar to how MMORPG has imposed this bizarre and unworkable segregation, would Google Books do something that foolish as well?  Its history with Youtube is quite telling. 

 

Within the off topic forums current form you are right - it is a segregation of information, but if MMORPG.com divides the off topic forum into catagories (even if it's only 2 tabs) then your arguement doesn't hold.

As a side issue, this is not a public domain, and the owner has the right to stock the shelves with whatever material the owner chooses.  The owner also has the right to delete and edit whatever the owner chooses, that is the nature of private ownership - the owner has all the rights and you have none.

So, if you own the books you have the right to burn them.

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by declaredemer

Centuries-old book burning rituals, today, would not be effective except for their symbolic value.  The internet is not, and cannot be considered, a sanctuary from censorship.  It is interesting that someone mentioned Google Books as the prime library for a generation who learns almost exclusively from the internet   I made a Topic in December of 2008 (Do You Trust Google? www.mpog.com/discussion2.cfm).  Google Books could become the ultimate internet library and with a generation of people totally changing how they learn, access information, browse titles, and read books -  this power is to not be underestimated.  Google Books could censor in various ways such as limiting access to some books, removing other books totally from the index, charging more for different subscriptions, and so forth. 

 

 

Worse, as it has done with Youtube, you could see Turkish and Chinese government (not people) values being expressed in Google's policies of access and expression.  Even Michelle Malkin was censored by Google.  Since there are no agreeable standards by which books or posts ought to be burned (removed from the index), the power lies with Google Books.  It also lies with web page moderators.

 

 

Similar to how MMORPG has imposed this bizarre and unworkable segregation, would Google Books do something that foolish as well?  Its history with Youtube is quite telling. 

 

 

Within the off topic forums current form you are right - it is a segregation of information, but if MMORPG.com divides the off topic forum into catagories (even if it's only 2 tabs) then your arguement doesn't hold.

As a side issue, this is not a public domain, and the owner has the right to stock the shelves with whatever material the owner chooses.  The owner also has the right to delete and edit whatever the owner chooses, that is the nature of private ownership - the owner has all the rights and you have none.

So, if you own the books you have the right to burn them.

I do not think in terms of ownership;  I think in terms of interests.  You have an interest in burning a book or censoring content, regardless of ownership.  The point is to illustrate as clearly as possible that ownership is not the issue. 

The issue is the irrational fear of both "politics" and "religion," which happens even today in varied forms.  Who typically has an interest in book burning, and why?  The sub-issue is that it is a lot easier to censor (book burn) online today than ever before.

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO BE CONFUSED

* * * YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED * * *

We should not celebrate censorship; we should not even tolerate it.  We should not celebrate taking-away our interests in free and open discussion, regardless of "ownership."  In terms of thinking of ownership, think about a company.  If I am a shareholder, I have an interest in that company.  If you and me form a joint venture or limited partnership, we both have an interest in the underlying deal.  It is somewhat semantic, perhaps even confusing, but the word ownership is way too often used as this absolute, over-riding, and completely all-or-nothing thing regarding . . . everything.  It is actually not true. It is difficult, and perhaps what I am saying is not at all clear, but try to think in terms of "interests" and not "ownership."  To confuse you more, some people say, "I own this house."  Well, that depends on the state.  In some states, the mortgagor has an interest in the property.  In some states, you might only have an interest.  Other states, you "own" the property until you default.  Honestly, and this will undoubtedly sound flaky, but I have tried to banish the word "ownership" from my vocabulary.  Its use, in this context, is actually preventing a discussion in all of our interests, including MMORPG's interests. You might even say this change in policies (separation, no moderation, etc.) that MMORPG has no "interest" in politics or religion, regardless of ownership.  You could say that its interest is at best very small because of  its separation of the two.  Or you could say that its interests is very large in the Off Topic forum because of the separation. 

The change strikes me as so unnecessary and inappropriate that the reasons seemed many and varied from moderator overwork to "heated" discussions.  I honestly cannot distinguish between politics and bad politics.  I can, however, distinguish between what is obscene and not.  It was not that "politics" and "religion" need to be, or could be due to ownership, separated; it was that we need to perhaps moderately (perhaps moderately) reform standards.

To clarify, "ownership" is too often used as a conversation stopper.  Oh, MMORPG owns this or that, so there is no discussion.  I own this house, so the discussion ends there.  It is unfortunate that so many are taught this way.  It is very narrow-minded at best, and too often very wrong. 

Originally posted by declaredemer

 

I do not think in terms of ownership;  I think in terms of interests.  You have an interest in burning a book or censoring content, regardless of ownership.  The point is to illustrate as clearly as possible that ownership is not the issue. 

 

 

The issue is the irrational fear of both "politics" and "religion," which happens even today in varied forms.  Who typically has an interest in book burning, and why?  The sub-issue is that it is a lot easier to censor (book burn) online today than ever before.

 

 

---

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO BE CONFUSED

* * * YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED * * *

We should not celebrate censorship; we should not even tolerate it.  We should not celebrate taking-away our interests in free and open discussion, regardless of "ownership."  In terms of thinking of ownership, think about a company.  If I am a shareholder, I have an interest in that company.  If you and me form a joint venture or limited partnership, we both have an interest in the underlying deal.  It is somewhat semantic, perhaps even confusing, but the word ownership is way too often used as this absolute, over-riding, and completely all-or-nothing thing regarding . . . everything.  It is actually not true. It is difficult, and perhaps what I am saying is not at all clear, but try to think in terms of "interests" and not "ownership."  To confuse you more, some people say, "I own this house."  Well, that depends on the state.  In some states, the mortgagor has an interest in the property.  In some states, you might only have an interest.  Other states, you "own" the property until you default.  Honestly, and this will undoubtedly sound flaky, but I have tried to banish the word "ownership" from my vocabulary.  Its use, in this context, is actually preventing a discussion in all of our interests, including MMORPG's interests. You might even say this change in policies (separation, no moderation, etc.) that MMORPG has no "interest" in politics or religion, regardless of ownership.  You could say that its interest is at best very small because of  its separation of the two.  Or you could say that its interests is very large in the Off Topic forum because of the separation. 

 

The change strikes me as so unnecessary and inappropriate that the reasons seemed many and varied from moderator overwork to "heated" discussions.  I honestly cannot distinguish between politics and bad politics.  I can, however, distinguish between what is obscene and not.  It was not that "politics" and "religion" need to be, or could be due to ownership, separated; it was that we need to perhaps moderately (perhaps moderately) reform standards.

 

To clarify, "ownership" is too often used as a conversation stopper.  Oh, MMORPG owns this or that, so there is no discussion.  I own this house, so the discussion ends there.  It is unfortunate that so many are taught this way.  It is very narrow-minded at best, and too often very wrong. 

---

 

 

May I point out that a shareholder is infact a partial owner of the company, infact, most of your examples are examples of total or partial ownership, and so the right to determine its use falls on the owner and if you disagree then effect change by expressing it to them in a way that they'll understand their error, or show them that without your contribution there will be a negative impact to them.

To boycott or to protest are the only options open to you if you're not an owner, and in this case a protest would get better results, since they make no money of any real value from this forum.

So what is your ultimate goal here and is your goal realistic?

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by declaredemer

 

I do not think in terms of ownership;  I think in terms of interests.  You have an interest in burning a book or censoring content, regardless of ownership.  The point is to illustrate as clearly as possible that ownership is not the issue. 

 

 

The issue is the irrational fear of both "politics" and "religion," which happens even today in varied forms.  Who typically has an interest in book burning, and why?  The sub-issue is that it is a lot easier to censor (book burn) online today than ever before.

 

 

---

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO BE CONFUSED

* * * YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED * * *

We should not celebrate censorship; we should not even tolerate it.  We should not celebrate taking-away our interests in free and open discussion, regardless of "ownership."  In terms of thinking of ownership, think about a company.  If I am a shareholder, I have an interest in that company.  If you and me form a joint venture or limited partnership, we both have an interest in the underlying deal.  It is somewhat semantic, perhaps even confusing, but the word ownership is way too often used as this absolute, over-riding, and completely all-or-nothing thing regarding . . . everything.  It is actually not true. It is difficult, and perhaps what I am saying is not at all clear, but try to think in terms of "interests" and not "ownership."  To confuse you more, some people say, "I own this house."  Well, that depends on the state.  In some states, the mortgagor has an interest in the property.  In some states, you might only have an interest.  Other states, you "own" the property until you default.  Honestly, and this will undoubtedly sound flaky, but I have tried to banish the word "ownership" from my vocabulary.  Its use, in this context, is actually preventing a discussion in all of our interests, including MMORPG's interests. You might even say this change in policies (separation, no moderation, etc.) that MMORPG has no "interest" in politics or religion, regardless of ownership.  You could say that its interest is at best very small because of  its separation of the two.  Or you could say that its interests is very large in the Off Topic forum because of the separation. 

 

The change strikes me as so unnecessary and inappropriate that the reasons seemed many and varied from moderator overwork to "heated" discussions.  I honestly cannot distinguish between politics and bad politics.  I can, however, distinguish between what is obscene and not.  It was not that "politics" and "religion" need to be, or could be due to ownership, separated; it was that we need to perhaps moderately (perhaps moderately) reform standards.

 

To clarify, "ownership" is too often used as a conversation stopper.  Oh, MMORPG owns this or that, so there is no discussion.  I own this house, so the discussion ends there.  It is unfortunate that so many are taught this way.  It is very narrow-minded at best, and too often very wrong. 

---

 

 

 

May I point out that a shareholder is infact a partial owner of the company, infact, most of your examples are examples of total or partial ownership, and so the right to determine its use falls on the owner and if you disagree then effect change by expressing it to them in a way that they'll understand their error, or show them that without your contribution there will be a negative impact to them.

To boycott or to protest are the only options open to you if you're not an owner, and in this case a protest would get better results, since they make no money of any real value from this forum.

So what is your ultimate goal here and is your goal realistic?

Huh?  Shareholders can use direct or derivative suits to effect change.  Shareholders can also obtain membership lists of corporations (often obtained for marketing, notwithstanding) for all sorts of corporate-related purposes.  Most of my examples were not, Sir, "partial or total ownership."  Moreover, this will help with your thinking in terms of "partial" (minority) ownership:  i.e., shareholders, who are in the minority, can still have their issues mentioned at management meetings.  I am trying to explain why I do not even like to use the word ownership.  Think in terms of interests.  In a trust, e.g., who owns the assets?  Suppose I transfer to you my money market account of 200,000 in trust; you will get the income of that money market account payable every year.  When you die, the 200,000 goes to a charitable trust (tax free transfer).  Let's pretend you are in the low income tax bracket, which is why I want you to get income from the trust each and every year.  If I receive the income, it will be taxed at a higher tax bracket.  If you get the income, it will be taxed at a lower tax bracket.  Notwithstanding what a non-appreciable asset is doing in a trust.   Is that MY trust, though?  Who "owns" the trust?  Do you?  What is your ownership?  What is your interest?  If you do not like that "ownership" example, try the others I provided such as shareholders in a corporation or the "ownership" of the mortgagee or the mortgagor. 

I had a feeling that my examples would only confuse more, though. My point is that "ownership" used by you is a conversation stopper, which is why you have limited options ("the only options open to you").  We literally speak a different language. 

Its probably not in MMORPG's interests to have a political/religious discussion.  I also do not see how it is in their interests either to not have a political/religious discussion.  It is why I believe the segregation is as unnecessary as inappropriate.  

Originally posted by declaredemer

 

Huh?  Shareholders can use direct or derivative suits to effect change.  Shareholders can also obtain membership lists of corporations (often obtained for marketing, notwithstanding) for all sorts of corporate-related purposes.  Most of my examples were not, Sir, "partial or total ownership."  Moreover, this will help with your thinking in terms of "partial" (minority) ownership:  i.e., shareholders, who are in the minority, can still have their issues mentioned at management meetings.  I am trying to explain why I do not even like to use the word ownership.  Think in terms of interests.  In a trust, e.g., who owns the assets?  Suppose I transfer to you my money market account of 200,000 in trust; you will get the income of that money market account payable every year.  When you die, the 200,000 goes to a charitable trust (tax free transfer).  Let's pretend you are in the low income tax bracket, which is why I want you to get income from the trust each and every year.  If I receive the income, it will be taxed at a higher tax bracket.  If you get the income, it will be taxed at a lower tax bracket.  Notwithstanding what a non-appreciable asset is doing in a trust.   Is that MY trust, though?  Who "owns" the trust?  Do you?  What is your ownership?  What is your interest?  If you do not like that "ownership" example, try the others I provided such as shareholders in a corporation or the "ownership" of the mortgagee or the mortgagor. 

 

I had a feeling that my examples would only confuse more, though. My point is that "ownership" used by you is a conversation stopper, which is why you have limited options ("the only options open to you").  We literally speak a different language. 

 

Its probably not in MMORPG's interests to have a political/religious discussion.  I also do not see how it is in their interests either to not have a political/religious discussion.  It is why I believe the segregation is as unnecessary as inappropriate.  

Oh, I'm not confused at all - I'm familar with the concepts of communism and socialism.

When somebody makes money from something and has something you want or need them to do there are only two options - protest or boycott.  I guess there is a 3rd option to buy them out, but I figuired you wouldn't want to spend YOUR money when you can just continue to spend THEIRS.  Also, a fourth option to threaten violence but that's just sick.

If you see more than 2 options lets here them from you?