Fascism in Action

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Wed May 05, 2004 8:17 am

Tank. my initial postings were an effort to create some interest in anti Sempra. Ya'lls peculiar BBS navel lint contemplation soon "dissed" that possibility.

Bull, your first postings started the Treasure Island thread and mentioned Sempra not at all. My first response to you was an honest one, replying to the disadvantages of Treasure Island as a place for Burning Man. I believe that my second and third posting in response to you was basically a warning to the rest of the crew that you were a liar and implied that you were a nut case. The only thing that your postings since have convinced me of is that you really do need to have your mental health checked out.

As for the censorship claim; again, Bull. This is a moderated forum and I know of no moderated forums that don't kick people out who are just there to piss in the soup. As for the M Moore thing, tough, if Disney does not want to be associated with the film that is their right. I personally would not want to be forced to associate with religious activists, or the KKK or on a more personal level, you.

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 8:55 am

Silver wrote:...kick people out who are just there to piss in the soup...

Motion seconded. All in favor?

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed May 05, 2004 8:59 am

With motions for which general support is obvious, you can simply ask for objections and pass the motion by acclamation if none are raised, rather than actually have to take a vote.

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:08 am

The court recognizes the point of order and decides in favor, with thanks to the man in khaki.

Any substantive objections or points of evidence not yet raised?

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:11 am

BRR wrote: It is however a public forum accessible to everyone, and as such is subject to the Bill of Rights. `

This statement is absolutely, 100% wrong. A public forum is a place that no private person owns, such as a park, a street or a public building. It was built or maintained by public funds, and therefore govt. cannot unreasonably limit speech there. This BBS is privately owned and operated, therefore it is not bound by the 1rst Amendment.

That said, I think it unfortunate that there is banning. It is a shame that jackanapes can create so much negative energy.

http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?Section=oif

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:45 am

Silver, you are wrong.

I figured at one time that the burning cultist were a bunch of left or liberal leaning folk. It is astonishing that you accept and advocate censorship.. Some years ago a street poll was done in a large city of America. A copy of the Bill of Rights was presented to people on the street without telling the people what it was, they were asked to read it and comment on it. The majority of people disagreed with one amendment or another. Comments were made that it appeared to be a Communist document.

The American Viceroy in Iraq, disagreed with statements made by an Iraqi newspaper and shut it down, resulting in the deaths of American Soldiers. The Iraqi staff of the American supported TV station walked off the job, stating interference by the Americans.. I expect support of censorship by right wing wackos..

So I was wrong,, you are a part of the coporate burning man cult, with the right wing tendencies of those who fear free speech, what a hoot..
Gerlach Times headline:
FASCISM FLOURISHES; burning man cultists support suspension of Bill of Rights.

Research indicates that 80% of adult Americans operate at the intellectual level of fifth graders.. Seems like the research is correct.. Pecori

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:53 am

Objection DENIED.

New evidence is anecdotal and unsupported, and does not actually address any of the accusations. NEXT.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:58 am

BRR wrote:Silver, you are wrong.

I figured at one time that the burning cultist were a bunch of left or liberal leaning folk. It is astonishing that you accept and advocate censorship.. Some years ago a street poll was done in a large city of America. A copy of the Bill of Rights was presented to people on the street without telling the people what it was, they were asked to read it and comment on it. The majority of people disagreed with one amendment or another. Comments were made that it appeared to be a Communist document.

The American Viceroy in Iraq, disagreed with statements made by an Iraqi newspaper and shut it down, resulting in the deaths of American Soldiers. The Iraqi staff of the American supported TV station walked off the job, stating interference by the Americans.. I expect support of censorship by right wing wackos..

So I was wrong,, you are a part of the coporate burning man cult, with the right wing tendencies of those who fear free speech, what a hoot..
Gerlach Times headline:
FASCISM FLOURISHES; burning man cultists support suspension of Bill of Rights.

Research indicates that 80% of adult Americans operate at the intellectual level of fifth graders.. Seems like the research is correct.. Pecori

Is Putin right or left?

Putin stands for freedom of speech, but restricted with democratic laws

The free press in Russia must have its economic basis instead of protecting corporative interests, Vladimir Putin said at the meeting with the graduates and students of Columbia University.

"A free possibility of expressing one's views must be limited by the law adopted in a democratic way," he pointed out.

A vivid example of this problem, said Putin, "took place during the capture of hostages in Moscow, when one television company bribed a policeman to have a possibility to climb to the roof of the building and broadcast the storm live, thus having jeopardized the lives of the 800 hostages and 200 special forces officers who stormed the building." "They did this not fighting for the freedom of speech but, as later their colleagues admitted, in the fight against their rivals, in the fight for money," said the Russian President.

"Is it permissible to jeopardize the life of people in the fight for superprofit?" the head of the Russian state asked a rhetoric question.

"The press can be free if it has its own economic basis but if it is monopolized by two or three 'money bags,' it is not a freedom, but the protection of corporative interests," he underscored.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:00 am

Index on Censorship

http://www.indexonline.org/

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:26 am

Captain Goddamit wrote:

But, of course, he doesn't have any more right to be out there than any of us do. Hell, we show up for a week (and pay the BLM for the right to do so), make some noise way out in the middle of nowhere, clean up after ourselves, and leave. He apparently thinks we're going to mess up "his" desert.

Perhaps I am missing the point of all the 'Original' (Jeffersonian, Franklinian, Madisonion, etc.) quotes on Freedom, but it seems to me that any 'Right' that we have we receive from someone else. Which means that they have the 'right' to take that 'right' away from us, which means we really don't have Freedom. Freedom to do what someone else allows us to do is a crappy kind of freedom. But, it is a current 'Fact of Life'.

Right now, BRR is exercizing that 'freedom' that has been granted to him by the moderators of this site. Whining about it, and calling it 'censorship' when people tell him to shut his pie hole is pathetic. Would he shut any of us down if we were to come onto a site that he moderated? We'll probably never know, because BRR appears to be a 'Sniper'... someone who just joins in and snipes at others and, like a little kid with a stick, loves to stir up the ant nest just to see the little creatures scurry around.

I say "Let the little kid stay". Let him stir the mix from time to time. Opposition builds strength in those who oppose it ("That which does not kill me makes me stronger"), plus it's fun to poke sticks at the moron who thinks he is superior to everyone here. Remember that kid in school? The one that everybody picked on because he wore funny clothes, didn't get the jokes, and smelled bad? He has come back to us as BRR.

Sic 'em!!

Sam

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:42 am

oh brr, how de-facto of you (sorry DF) to make the 'noone gets it but me' claim. Yes, I am sure to go out to the BRD in a few months and find it all awry and or shit down.

FYI, not all speech is protected.

as far as your anecdote about the posting of the bill of rights, of course most people disagree with one or more of the declarations. If everyone was in universal agreement the document would be utterly superfluous. Oh wait, there I am commenting on the lack of substance of your posts and not 'getting' your secret agenda.

remember folks, this looser is a self professed liar.

check your premise next time, pal.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:45 am

I really don't know why I do this. Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and this case the pig enjoys it.

Silver, you are wrong.

I figured at one time that the burning cultist were a bunch of left or liberal leaning folk. It is astonishing that you accept and advocate censorship.

Nope, I oppose censorship, the problem is that you don't seem to understand where public rights end and private rights begin. You are free to stand in the road outside of my house and preach, rant or bemoan any thing you want, knock youself out. On the other hand you cannot come into my house and preach, rant or whatever unless I invite you. If I mistake you for a reasonable person and invite you in I have every right to tell you to leave when I realize the truth. Real life example that may help you understand (heh): when the kid was 8 or 9 some religion peddlers came to the door and asked to speak to his mom or dad. He invited them in and went to get me. By the time I got there they were into their routine with my kid. I politely asked them to leave, saying that I maintained a superstition free home. They got the hint and left. As repugnant as I find bible beaters they have right to wander around try to convert people. They do not have the right to do it in my home. In the case of Moore, there is no censorship. He is free to hire a hall or halls and show whatever he wants. On the other hand he is not free to force or require other people, who disagree with him (for whatever motives) to exhibit his work. Using your logic, even though I have negative vocal talent the local bar should allow me to sing since they let other people sing.

If you really do live in Nevada this link might be helpful.

http://www.mhds.state.nv.us/

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:48 am

also,

False Analogy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property.

from
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

spend a little time grasshopper

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:26 pm

stuart wrote:oh brr, how de-facto of you (sorry DF) to make the 'noone gets it but me' claim. Yes, I am sure to go out to the BRD in a few months and find it all awry and or shit down.

Well I was going to say something about that along time ago when BRR stated this:

BRR wrote:
Tank, I use an overt/covert approach to my postings, the overt is what ya'll respond to (exactly according to my secret plan to rule the web). The covert part is apparently subtle enough that although you walk all over it, only two people have figured it out and contacted me regarding it.

But I did'nt want to get myself in trouble. I want to leave the sniping to the snipers.

BRR's defacto is not funky enough. Just not done right. Might I suggest DE FACTO'S FUNK!

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 pm

The court recognizes the following:

Joel's submission of outside evidence regarding the precise nature of censorship: ACCEPTED.

Samtzu's argument regarding the childish nature of BRR's words: ACCE
PTED. Motion to "sic 'em" PASSED, with prejudice.

Stuart's argument regarding the non-blanket nature of the first amendment: ACCEPTED. Submission of evidence regarding BRR's lack of trustworthiness: ACCEPTED.

Silver's argument regarding the distinction of public vs. private rights: ACCEPTED. Proposal that BRR seek professional mental health care: ACCEPTED, with thanks.

Stuart's definition of False Analogy: ACCEPTED. The court now assumes BRR has read and understands this logical fallacy, and will hold him in a great deal of contempt should he choose to make use of it again.

Lastly, the court ACCEPTS DVD Burner's stated intention to avoid self-incrimination in order to assist with the incrimination of BRR. The court also requests that all further musical interludes be scrapped in favor of more convincing evidence.

Thank you.

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:01 pm

Additionally, the court advises the defense that it is still waiting for a convincing argument, and is becoming rather testy at the defense's refusal to provide one.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:22 pm

Samtzu,, you get past fifth grade US history? "Perhaps I am missing the point of all the 'Original' (Jeffersonian, Franklinian, Madisonion, etc.) quotes on Freedom, but it seems to me that any 'Right' that we have we receive from someone else. Which means that they have the 'right' to take that 'right' away from us, which means we really don't have Freedom. Freedom to do what someone else allows us to do is a crappy kind of freedom. But, it is a current 'Fact of Life'."

"...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" Jefferson

Maybe ya'll need to scurry down to the local library and read up a bit. I have never heard such a whelping of apologists for indefensible actions.. Ya'll could get some really cool black shirts, help your identity. Who da' thunk that the burning man cult was inhabited by a bunch of neo Nazi's.. Freedom is Freedom.. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of speech.. Ya'll would defend it, I imagine, in pursuit of your pleasures,, How many of you like the censorship of the homosexual signs at BM last year? Well enjoy it while it lasts. I am actually and truly surprised by the right wing take on civil rights by you guys..

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:22 pm

Nicely done there Zephryus

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:42 pm

The court thanks the lady with the handgun and DENIES BRR's ad-homeniem attack. The court once again requests that BRR back up his position by actually addressing the charges levied against him. The court would also like to remind BRR that making unsubstantiated charges regarding others' apparent lack of book smarts does NOT lead the court to assume a converse possession of said smarts by BRR, rather the opposite.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:56 pm

SEE!

I told ya Zephryus was moderator material.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed May 05, 2004 5:43 pm

We reserve the right to maintain this board for the benefit of all.

Please behave.

E Clampus Vitus.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 05, 2004 5:55 pm

Dont you think it would be less dramatic if you had just said:

We dont need no stinkin moderator,
We got da plonker!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:19 pm

Bob, you used; behave, and E Clampus Vitus, in the same post.. that is really funny, I wonder how many of the cultists even know of this ancient and honored and drunken society. "dedicated to the aid and assistance of widows and orphans,, particularly widows, particularly young widows..

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:21 pm

The de facto Latin translation would be "Please keep your tit away from the wringer."

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:06 pm

Okay Ric, here's a theoretical question(s) for you: If I owned a bar and someone walked in and suddenly started talking about how much they hated fags and wouldn't stop, would it make me a neo-nazi if I threw them out? What if they just hurled a bunch of abuse at me personally? Would I be infringing on his free speech by throwing them out then?

If not, why not? And how is that different from being thrown off this privately maintained board?

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:10 pm

BRR: Thanks for the sneer. Felt great!!

Bob: Thanks for the Clamper reference. Matuca 1849.

Hang the bastards!

Sam

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:12 pm

Would I be infringing on his free speech by throwing them out then?

Further, would it be oppressing the customer if Kelly rung up Isotopia to head down to said bar and open up a can of Carolina Whipass(TM) on the offensive customer while wearing her best Channel strapless gown and Dior Lunette sunglasses?

rodent · Post by **rodent** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:36 pm

happy Cinco de Mayo...

**snicker**

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:36 pm

The answer to your first question is; yes, Unless they are making a threat.. The rule of shouting fire in a theatre applies.

The answer to your second question,, if it were me, you could try, good luck, just like on this board

Look, you cannot pick and choose what rights can be supported or not supported. Look at the woman in Florida who asked for the morning after birthcontrol pill, the pharmacist refused to give her the pills, because he philosophically disagreed with birth control.. He lost his job over it.

I cannot believe that this is even something to discuss. 200 years of American liberty, the lives of thousands of men have been given for this. I put my young and stupid ass on the line for this
I took lives for this, other young men who had no concept of what they did not have, who loved their mothers and were loved by there mothers.
The Bill of Rights, complete and unabridged are the single thing that makes this country better than the others..

I may not agree with you, and I may argue and harass you, but I will defend to the death your right to believe as you do.

It is unbelievable to me that in the year of our Lord 2004 that is not held to by every American.. Shine Perishing Republic, Shine.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:43 pm

If the admin chooses to freely associate anyone's ass with the door, I dare say that's constitutionally protected.

Fascism in Action

Point of order!

Re: 1st amendment

a hoot

Re: a hoot

I'll be danged

Bob

Kelly