Censorship

[Dave Hancock]

Originally posted by Franck
I would like to point out that nobody has asked me to remove you from the Forum. I received many complaints about several posts, some of them yours, and some not, which were abusive in tone and language, and myself and moderators had to decide whether to remove them or not.

To that effect, I have a special area, only visible to moderators, where all posts that fit the above are moved to. This gives anyone the chance to appeal the decision.
..... though I will keep removing posts that in my opinion are abusive or defamatory. I have missed most of the abusive posts which have been referred to. However I am both shocked and disappointed to read that posts are being censored and removed. This in my opinion is wrong.

While I fully expect to get slated for my thoughts, I think it is counter-productive to censor. You only need to check the history books to see that communities that censor generally don't prosper as only one perspectiive is ever presentsed as dissenting voices are covered up. Also, was this not one of the contributory factors in the downfall of the London forum???

If someone wishes to be abusive, then so be it, as Mikey says you don't have to read it and on reading such posts one are likely to form their own opinions (which again IMO would lead to many people taking a stance agaianst the abuser and not holding them in a very positive light, as generally society doesn't care for name-callers or bullying).

I have never met Andy or Mikey, don't have a problem with either of them, and should I meet them them, as DS says I'll make up my mind then. I only hope that if I do that they feel free to speak their mind without fear of offending.

Freedom of speech is recognised as one of the cornerstones of our society and it is very disappointing to see that the forum seems to be veering away from this :sad:

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Dave Hancock
Freedom of speech is recognised as one of the cornerstones of our society and it is very disappointing to see that the forum seems to be veering away from this :sad:
What is or isn't within the bounds of acceptability on the Forum is not the same as what is or isn't in our society.

The Forum is a specific club, with specific aims - one of which is presumably to foster the sort of friendly atmosphere we enjoy so much in dance.

It's more like the pub that was mentioned the other day. If you've got a few people screaming and shouting at each other in one corner (and it's way too simplistic to imagine that the solution is as simple as just not reading the abusive postings), it spoils the environment for the rest, and eventually people just don't like it any more, and leave.

Nothing to do with any right of freedom of speech IMHO. I'm here because I like the atmosphere. If I don't, I'll go. Now it may be that some here get some pleasure from watching the aggro unfold. But I'm not one of them, and I think the majority probably aren't either.

Personally I'm very happy with the way Franck balances things. In fact, IMHO, he and the moderators do a damn fine job.

Chris

[TheTramp]

Sorry Dave...

Can't agree mate. In my experience, without a limited form of censorship, online forums do tend to go down the pan quite quickly sometimes. People in general are usually a lot 'freer' in what they say online. Generally because there isn't a real person in front of them, so they feel that maybe they can get away with more. Or just don't think about it.

How would you feel if your dirty washing, or skeletons (if you had any of course :wink: ) were aired in a public place, where 679 (the current number of members) could read it. Or someone said something abusive about you, or worse still, any of the above about someone that you cared about.

I think that the above behaviour is liable to drive people away from the forum. Not just the persons that are directly affected, but also people who just don't want to deal with the general bitchiness (can you say bitchiness on here? :D ) of such happenings. It's also very difficult to decide whether or not to read such things, until after you have read them. Unless you stop reading someone's posts altogether - and then you might miss something important or interesting that person has to say.

I would agree that people reading such things are very likely to be alienated against the person posting them (unless they have strong feelings for what they have to say). However, that still fosters a lack of friendship and community, in a forum which has shown a great deal of this in the past, and hopefully will continue to do so in the future.

The censoring of opinions is one thing. And I think that Franck should be commended in allowing people to post on a much wider variety of topics than is generally allowed on a Ceroc related media. Freedom of speech has continually been demonstrated here, however, censoring of abusive behaviour is a different thing altogether, and I totally support Franck in removing this whenever it occurs.

Steve

[Gus]

Originally posted by TheTramp
Sorry Dave...

Can't agree mate. .......

The censoring of opinions is one thing. And I think that Franck should be commended in allowing people to post on a much wider variety of topics than is generally allowed on a Ceroc related media. Freedom of speech has continually been demonstrated here, however, censoring of abusive behaviour is a different thing altogether, and I totally support Franck in removing this whenever it occurs.

Steve

Hear Hear. There is a fine line between the right to freedom of expression and the abuse of that right. There have been a number of cases where some comments have erred from an expression of a view to an outright attack on another forum member.

Some people sometimes feel a little 'braver' to flame someone on a forum ... but as Trampy says, that can lead to a degredation in Spirit. The Forum has flourished beacuse of its Spirit of fostering healthy debate and kinship .. long may it continue.

[Gary]

I'm another voter for "limited censorship by benevolent dictator Franck and friends". Franck's done a fantastic job and I trust him.

[Reklaw]

Originally posted by TheTramp
The censoring of opinions is one thing. And I think that Franck should be commended in allowing people to post on a much wider variety of topics than is generally allowed on a Ceroc related media. Freedom of speech has continually been demonstrated here, however, censoring of abusive behaviour is a different thing altogether, and I totally support Franck in removing this whenever it occurs.

Steve
Ditto

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by Dave Hancock
This in my opinion is wrong.

no you're wrong :D ... only joking....but to counter that argument....



While I fully expect to get slated for my thoughts, I think it is counter-productive to censor.

But you dont really expect to get slated do you, not from the majority of people on here? You expect to get some disagreement perhaps but no personal abuse. (Ill abuse you by PM later :) ) This is because the 'quality' of poster is fairly high - inane, dribbling muppets mostly but fairly friendly with it :).

I can see both sides to this argument. In some ways its a shame that i never witnessed the actual deleted posts so i could make up my own mind about their content but I can also see the bigger picture - Franck is maintaining a quickly growing friendly forum. Key word there is 'maintaining' and I think that has to include the content. As ChrisA says - if you were to go into a pub and there were people shouting and swearing in a corner you would probably leave fairly quickly, if it was like that the next time you went in too you would probably never go back. Its then likely to turn into a pub full of shouting swearing people, and its too late by then. Eventually it gets bought over by wetherspoons and refurbished..and er..maybe our analogy ends there :). So my point, if i have one, is that deleting the 'shouting' keeps the forum balanced, friendly and the content to a fairly high standard...albeit trivial at times (er..yeah sorry!).

A point about Andys posts actually - some of his topics have been the most interesting and raised the best debates. So it is already a shame that he feels he has to leave the forum for a while! So, yet again - 'All Hail Franck' for taking the time to moderate.

[Stuart M]

I've been a victim of unfair censorship on another internet forum in the past - long story - but the vast majority of folk on the list in question agreed I, along with the other folk censored, were in the right. To the extent that we all left the list en masse and started a new one! As such, I tend to sympathise with Dave's view that censorship is wrong.

Personally, I'd prefer the "Take it Outside" section to be used for this sort of thing, and a public yellow/red card (i.e. not by PM) system to be in place. That way justice is seen to be done (censorship is simply justice in camera, after all), but those who don't want to read the c**p can happily ignore it.

As an aside, I just read the f.a.q. and it doesn't seem to include an "acceptable use" policy statement, maybe it should from hereon.

To be fair to Franck, this recent incident seems to have been an isolated one. Hopefully it's not the start of a trend, either in terms of curbing what can be said, or of people abusing the freedom to speak their mind hereon. Either of these would discourage me from taking part :sad: .

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Stuart M
but the vast majority of folk on the list in question agreed I, along with the other folk censored, were in the right. To the extent that we all left the list en masse and started a new one!
And we all have exactly the same freedom here. There are lots of discussion forums on every topic imaginable. If this one doesn't suit some people, there is nothing wrong with them voting with their feet, and nothing stopping them.

The only difference I can see is that the majority seem to be perfectly happy with the moderation here.

IMHO, "censorship" is too strong a word to describe what's going on here - as Steve has pointed out, there's no censorship of opinion, just of personal abuse. Respect to Franck for allowing such open discussion.

Chris

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by Stuart M
Hopefully it's not the start of a trend, either in terms of curbing what can be said, or of people abusing the freedom to speak their mind hereon. Either of these would discourage me from taking part :sad: . Can you please clarify this.

You say that either people being censored (I agree with ChrisA (again :( ) that this probably isn't the right word, and I don't think that censorship in the usual terms of restricting the right of free (reasonable) speech ever happens here), or people abusing their freedom to speak are both bad.

And I probably agree with you.

However, that would mean that everyone would have to 'police' themselves. And while neither was happening, everything would be fine.

But should the case arise that someone did start to abuse their right of free speech, then surely removing the particular instance of this abuse, is better than leaving it there? Especially since you say that the abuse would discourage you from taking part anyhow.

I was always brought up to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. However, in this case, I think that the two actions that you perceive as being 'wrong' (I don't necessarily agree that it's wrong to curb abusive behaviour) would make a right. Or at least, somewhat better than without the second action.

Steve

PS. Apologies again for this post being not as clear as I'd have liked. I just re-read it myself and was struggling :D

[John S]

I haven't (obviously) seen the posts that have been removed, so I don't know the background.

But it is a fiction that we have total freedom of speech in any society - there are laws which prohibit certain expressions (eg libel, racial hatred etc) and consequences for breaching those laws - that's the reasonable price for living in a society.

And my understanding of the current state of Internet law is that if a Forum moderator allows publication of libellous / malicious /indecent material on his site, and does not take prompt action to remove it, then there is a reasonable chance of a successful legal action against him as publisher, at least in some legal jurisdictions - and remember, the Forum is accessible not just to its members but to everyone in the world with Internet access. This has already been discussed under another thread.

Also, Franck has a duty as a franchisee to protect the interests of Ceroc, and any association of Ceroc's good name with offensive material is commercially damaging to the company - and therefore to all our interests as users of the company's services.

Therefore, apart from all the valid arguments that have already been put forward supporting Franck's policy of removing material that he and his co-ordinators consider should not be published, there are very strong legal and commercial ones.

Franck & co do a superb job in allowing a considerable freedom of expression already, and have a very light touch in policing the posts - personally I am more than happy to trust their judgment. (as long as they don't "censor" this post!!!)

[Bardsey]

Originally posted by ChrisA
The only difference I can see is that the majority seem to be perfectly happy with the moderation here.

IMHO, "censorship" is too strong a word to describe what's going on here - as Steve has pointed out, there's no censorship of opinion, just of personal abuse. Respect to Franck for allowing such open discussion.

Chris

I have to say I agree with the above statement. I don't know what went on either, not do I want to, but I think the Forum is a great way of expressing ourselves, making friends etc and I also think Franck does a great job, as well as being very helpful when asked something.

I'm sick to see Andy disappear for a while, cos I always joined in his posts as they were usually very amusing and lets be honest, we all need to chill out and have a laugh now and then.

Jill

[Chicklet]

From a slightly different viewpoint, as one who has undoubtably led a very sheltered life I really don't want to see any personal attacks (think I'm possibly one of the few who thinks she did actually read one or two of the deleted items (if I'm wrong and there were worse than that's even worse again) on here.

There were a couple of posts that made me feel really really uncomfortable, I had to log off and have a wee lie down with an Elinor Brent Dyer book and my security blanket for 1/2 an hour - ok that's a slight exageration cos I was in the office but I DID log off in horror and go off and make a cup of comfort tea.

One vote for status quo on the blue pencil.
C:innocent:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by John S
But it is a fiction that we have total freedom of speech in any society - there are laws which prohibit certain expressions (eg libel, racial hatred etc) and consequences for breaching those laws - that's the reasonable price for living in a society.

Im not sure 'Fiction' is the right way to put it. If someone libels you the onus is on YOU to prove that the statement they made is in fact false. So there is nothing stopping you legally from saying anything about anyone, its only after you have spoken your lies are pointed out :). Quite right too I think, thats what free speech is all about.

And the difference between libel and slander is...

libel = A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

slander = Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

The law differs greatly between Scotland and England and Wales too though - I think Defamation covers both slander and libel in Scotland. Ill let others look into it. (Good topic to start John ;))

Heres an interesting link (http://www.scottishlaw.org.uk/lawscotland/itdef.html) all about it


Originally posted by John S
And my understanding of the current state of Internet law is that if a Forum moderator allows publication of libellous / malicious /indecent material on his site, and does not take prompt action to remove it, then there is a reasonable chance of a successful legal action against him as publisher

This is very much a grey area, generally its NOT up to the owner to moderate a site but they can certainly be sued if they are hosting information which only they can remove and they refuse to do so when reasonably asked. I doubt they would be seen as a publisher though, not really the same thing. There was a recent case with Demon Internet who as ISPs refused to remove a message where someone pretended to be someone else and the impresonated person complained...coincidentally, the guy had a habit of filing law suits anyway, Ill find a link to that later :).

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
If someone libels you the onus is on YOU to prove that the statement they made is in fact false.
God help us all if we ever have to take legal action as a result of forum postings.

If it ever happens, I won't know about it - cos I'll have long since headed off somewhere else.

Chris

[Will]

Dave,

I have to disagree with you as well. We are all in favour of censorship whether we admit it or not.

What if some kiddy-fiddler was using this forum to try to solicite paedophilic activities? Wouldn't you want Franck to get rid of it? Of course you would!

It's not an issue of Censorship vs Non-Censorship, it is an issue of where you draw the line with regards to censoring. Personally I think Franck has got it about right.

Will

[Stuart M]

Originally posted by TheTramp
Can you please clarify this.

My view is that if either situation got out of hand, with idiots constantly shouting abuse on the Forum, or posts being deleted regularly, I'd stop posting. Like Dave, I have a problem with the latter, because I'm not aware of the extent to which it may have taken place in the past. If posts/threads are being removed, the fact that they have been removed should be made known to the community (e.g. like what happens when you put a user in your "Ignore" list). To borrow Chicklet's phrase, I'm happy with the blue pencil - but I'd like to know when it's been used.


Originally posted by TheTramp
But should the case arise that someone did start to abuse their right of free speech, then surely removing the particular instance of this abuse, is better than leaving it there? Especially since you say that the abuse would discourage you from taking part anyhow.

My problem is that the decision concerning what constitutes abuse has been made outwith my control. What a moderator considers personal abuse may not be what I consider it to be. In my previous experience which I referred to, it apparently included constructive criticism.

At the end of the day I'm generally less prepared to trust the judgement of a moderator. My apologies.

I do trust Franck, on the basis of his track record here. It's plainly obvious that there are commercial reasons why he may have problems with a lot of posts on this Forum, and it's to his (and by implication Ceroc's) eternal credit that he allows so much freedom of opinion here. But perhaps it's time that some groundrules and procedures were written down and put somewhere easily accessible for newer users. I've been searching and still can't find anything which tells me what constitutes acceptable use of this Forum (and, importantly, what happens to someone who doesn't follow those rules)...apologies if I've missed it :sorry

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Stuart M
My view is that if either situation got out of hand, with idiots constantly shouting abuse on the Forum, or posts being deleted regularly, I'd stop posting.

Absolutely, as would most of us, and then where would we be?

Surely we want to stop it getting out of hand.

We talk about dance here. :)

It's not brain surgery, it's not air traffic control. It's dancing. I want to hang out here with people who like dancing, like talking about dancing, like having a bit of a larf.

I don't want to abuse anyone (except the Tramp, obviously, though he makes it very difficult by keeping on agreeing with me about things :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ), be abused (er, except by the Tramp, obviously, until Andy comes back), or read other people's abuse... (er..)

Trust me on this, we aren't risking our entire nation's constitution by banning people from publicly slagging one another off.

Chris

[Gadget]

Originally posted by Stuart M
Like Dave, I have a problem with the latter, because I'm not aware of the extent to which it may have taken place in the past. If posts/threads are being removed, the fact that they have been removed should be made known to the community (e.g. like what happens when you put a user in your "Ignore" list). To borrow Chicklet's phrase, I'm happy with the blue pencil - but I'd like to know when it's been used.
I think that this is the crux of the matter; people don't mind censorship, as long as they know where it's been applied and to whom.

Personally, I would have preferred to see a post by the offender with the text blanked or replacd with "Censored dd/mm/yyyy due to blerg."
In this way you see that the moderator is actually doing something. You see the offender(s) and can decide to block any further posts by them. The offender(s) get a public knuckle wrap. And your views of this person are ammended to take into account their behaviour.
It would also allow the offender an option to post a non-abusive explaination for his actions to all.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Stuart M
At the end of the day I'm generally less prepared to trust the judgement of a moderator. My apologies. There are only a very small number of instances where Franck has deemed it necessary to relocate a post/exchange to the hidden area - I have personally seen this happen a couple of times and have always been in complete agreement. It's actually not as difficult a question of judgment by the moderators as you might think - it's very easy to tell the difference between opinion related to a post, however aggressively expressed, and personal abuse. It was certainly clear to me in the recent incident, and also in the previous one I saw, that allegations were being made about a person's character which were based on previous in-person disagreements between the two people, and had nothing to do with what had been posted on the forum. I'm (obviously) another campaigner for the status quo. The other thing to bear in mind is that none of the "offenders" in the incidents I've seen have had posting privileges removed - the specific posts were hidden and they were told why, and remain free to express their ideas on the forum (other than personal abuse, obviously!).

[Sheepman]

Whether it's libel or defamation, Franck does need to intervene sometimes, I think in general we are good at talking about hypothetical cases without naming names, even if we have been witness to the facts.

In the case I assumed sparked off this thread, it seemed to me it was pent up abuse aimed at one (frequently named) individual. I couldn't see any factual justification for that abuse, so it was all pretty pointless. I don't think you should ever complain about someone or something that they have done without stating the exact reasons for your complaint. This applies even more so on a poublic forum. (Not that I always stick to this rule personally!) Had the facts been included, then the libel/defamation problem may have applied.

I'm not sure that hiding the posts was entirely necessary in the recent case, but Franck has to be the arbiter of that, and long may his work continue.

Greg

[Grant]

Originally posted by Stuart M
To borrow Chicklet's phrase, I'm happy with the blue pencil - but I'd like to know when it's been used.

personally i don't feel i need to know where and when franck has been busy with the blue pencil

i think we all agree that one of the reasons we keep coming back is because franck does a good job of moderating the discussions. he allows full and open discussions on all manner of topics including the merits of ceroc v rival styles. and allows advertising of outside events (you can't be more liberal than that!)

occasionally i know i go way off topic :sorry or include comments of a mildly(?) suggestive nature :devil: and franck feels the need to move my postings. but i have never felt aggrieved by any of the actions he has taken and i trust him to take actions in the best interests of our little community without needing to tell me where and when he has done this.

whew that's enough guff from me
now i'll get off my soap box...
and you can all get back to your bickering :wink:

grant

[bigdjiver]

Originally posted by Gadget
Personally, I would have preferred to see a post by the offender with the text blanked or replacd with "Censored dd/mm/yyyy due to blerg."
In this way you see that the moderator is actually doing something. You see the offender(s) and can decide to block any further posts by them. The offender(s) get a public knuckle wrap. And your views of this person are ammended to take into account their behaviour.
It would also allow the offender an option to post a non-abusive explaination for his actions to all.

Rather than "Censored" how about "Temporarily witheld pending reconsideration" ?

All this is placing a great deal more work on Franck, because, if I know anything about it, most people who has a post suspended or deleted are going to be passionate in their views, and prepared to argue long and strenuously about it.

This could rapidly turn into a full time unpaid job, and the sanest commercial decision be to close the forum.

[Reklaw]

Originally posted by bigdjiver
This could rapidly turn into a full time unpaid job
Probably already is!

[stewart38]

Originally posted by bigdjiver
Rather than "Censored" how about "Temporarily witheld pending reconsideration" ?

All this is placing a great deal more work on Franck, because, if I know anything about it, most people who has a post suspended or deleted are going to be passionate in their views, and prepared to argue long and strenuously about it.

This could rapidly turn into a full time unpaid job, and the sanest commercial decision be to close the forum.

I would like to thank Franck and the moderators for all the work they put into this site :cheers:

[Lynn]

Originally posted by stewart38
I would like to thank Franck and the moderators for all the work they put into this site :cheers:

I agree!

I think that there is a role for moderation of posts on this site and that it is being done in an appropriate way with a lot of freedom being given - but there are some boundaries and when a post or thread crosses those it is removed from the public domain.

Thanks for all your hard work guys.:cheers:

[Fran]

from personal experience I am very glad that Franck can and does intervene when it is nessarsary and I think he handles it very well.
I am sorry Dave but I would have to disagree with you as well. when things turn into a personal attack it should not be in a public place. The humiliation and upset it causes it not worth it.

[Chris]

Often when people seem to go on the attack it is because they have felt hurt or badly treated. But in that frame of mind they tend to hit out inaccurately. And as someone said in a tagline, the quality of your communication is in the response you receive. The BBFC (film board censors) have struck an excellent note IMO. From once being irrationally censorious they have moved to a position of minimally censoring and have not only improved industry standards but have won fairly widespread public acceptance for their impartiality and respect for individual expression.

The role of the censor or moderator can perhaps be explained with the Kantian categorical imperative that might ask the question 'What if everyone acted like this?' Certain types of expression are ultimately only valid if the opposing expression is silenced completely - which would not make for a tolerant community.

:cheers:

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Chris
Kantian categorical imperative
Boomer....

Oi, Boomer....

... Boomer !!!

Have you been molesting that nice Chris D again?????

I'll be publicly vilifying you some more if you have.... :devil: :devil:

[Chris]

LOL!

Personally I call it 'universalisability' but I believe C.I. is the correct phrase. Moral decisions backed up by a logical structure to argue in favour of limited censorship / moderation rather than arguing for it by populist sentiment or (the alternative to moderation) simply allowing for anarchy.

[Franck]

Originally posted by Stuart M
I'm not aware of the extent to which it may have taken place in the past. If posts/threads are being removed, the fact that they have been removed should be made known to the communityHi Stuart,
I understand your concerns, but disagree. The likely result of me announcing that a post was removed, is that everyone will try and find out what the post contained in the first place. This would lead to further speculation / personal abuse.
The only people that matter in my view, are the people who made the post.
As I mentioned previously, anyone whose post was removed is notified by email, with an explanation. The post is placed in a separate area of the Forum, and should the poster present a good case for re-instating the post, then it would be. Ultimately, the decision will be mine, and mine alone. On that basis, many of you might decide that my approach is either too heavy-handed, or too soft... I don't claim to make the right decision every time either, and I won't censor discussions on that either :nice:
My intent in moderating the discussions is to make sure that nobody suffers personal attacks / insults or abuse. This is, and I hope will remain a very friendly community. I do not delete post who offer constructive criticism of Ceroc / nights or systems... I would however draw the line at individual teachers / crew members (DJs, managers, Taxi-dancers, etc...). It's ok to attack a system, or point out how it can fail, not so to attack individuals.

Originally posted by Stuart M
But perhaps it's time that some groundrules and procedures were written down and put somewhere easily accessible for newer users. I totally agree with that. I will work on a simple set of rules on what is acceptable on the Forum and what isn't. This will be posted clearly, and hopefully help everyone.

Ultimately, I am legally responsible for anything that is posted on my website. This means that if anyone asks me, for example, to remove the lyrics of a song because they are a breach of copyright, I would have to comply. Regardless of the poster's views on freedom of speech.

Franck.

[Chris]

I think Franck has argued his case very well. I hope I didn't sound pretentious waffling on about Kantian theory (it makes sense to me - I think!). Fran put it a lot simpler - it's really not worth the hurt than can be caused. (And people can hurt each other even when they don't wish each other any harm).*

Chris D.



________________________________________________
"footnote to anyone who's following Kantian logic or
using Boomer's excellent philosophy page - if you put
the 'minimising hurt' argument in a formal setting you
would use a utilitarian approach as opposed to Kant's
deontological one - both get the same result but by
seemingly different means. I've no idea where Hegel
would stand . . .

[Boomer]

Originally posted by Chris
...

________________________________________________
"footnote to anyone who's following Kantian logic or using Boomer's excellent philosophy page ... I've no idea where Hegel would stand . . .

Chis mate, I'm not sure if anyone is :grin: this includes me :sad:
I have no idea either, but I suspect he would go into his Phenomenology :tears: and the development of consciousness :what: My head hurts.

I also agree that Franck’s use of ‘The Red-Pen’ is judicious and light. Since I hit this Forum like a dose of the squits I’ve not once felt as if my ‘freedoms’ (how pompous is that :grin: ) have been threatened by the manipulations of Franck & co (hiya Sheen and Em :grin: :hug: ).

[Chris]

Originally posted by Boomer
Chis mate, I'm not sure if anyone is :grin: this includes me :sad:
ok :tears:
Originally posted by Boomer

I have no idea either, but I suspect he would go into his Phenomenology :tears: and the development of consciousness :what: My head hurts.

{Is Boomer secretly displaying interest or leading me on . . . :( I shall repress my urge to express my ignorance of but interest in hegel's ontology, or the usefulness of his dialectic as a method lol}

Originally posted by Boomer
I also agree that Franck’s use of ‘The Red-Pen’ . . .
b*gger - is it changing colour again?? I thought is was blue a minute ago . . .

Oh well . . .

As someone who has been red/blue penned, I am grateful, in retrospect. Mostly for having my own embarrassing and (unintentionally) hurtful mistakes deleted (and at least one (capital lettered) post against me deleted).

Having made an utter prat of myself in that area I'm pleased someone intervened. I think the forum is a better place for someone setting and enforcing the rules, whichever side I'm on.
:cheers:

[stewart38]

I don't think much is censored on here ?

I would like to state the following

..........................................
.........................................



........................................
.........................................


:devil:

[Lynn]

Originally posted by stewart38
I don't think much is censored on here ?

I would like to state the following

..........................................
.........................................



:rofl::rofl:

[Bardsey]

Originally posted by stewart38
I don't think much is censored on here ?

I would like to state the following

..........................................
.........................................


:devil:

:rofl: Well done, very funny!