Thanks for the clarification.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > snip
> > > They aren't entitled to accuse me of "twisting" a
> > > proposition simply because they don't want to bother to
> > > understand it.
> >
> > This is likely to be the second to last comment on this issue,
> > at least between the two of us. You stated that if you were
> > the Czar of FFL you would see fit to institute a policy
> > whereby if someone over posted for the week and was therefore
> > ineligible to post the following week, that any posts critical
> > of this poster should be prohibited,
>
> BZZZZT. I said I'd "forbid ANY commentary from other posters
> about somebody going over" (emphasis added). The rule would
> apply to everyone, not just the mean people. I said NOTHING
> about prohibiting "posts critical of this poster." The rule
> would prohibit posts that *praised* the poster as well if
> they were about the overposting.
>
> > on the grounds
> > that said poster would not be able to respond. I stated that
> > this sounded a lot of censorship, which you are on record as
> > vigorously opposing. You came back and said that the only
> > issue of censorship was with the person who had over posted
> > being ineligible from posting the following week.
>
> BZZZZZT. I said nothing about the overposter being the "only
> issue of censorship." I don't believe the rule I suggested
> involves *any* kind of censorship. But if you choose to
> call the rule censorship, then you have to acknowledge that
> the overposter's banning is *also* censorship, since that
> poster is unable to say *anything* for a week.
>
> And BTW, I did acknowledge your characterization of the
> rule as "censorship." I said, "Yes, and prior restraint
> at that." "Prior restraint" is a phrase often used to
> describe a particular kind of censorship. Look it up.
>
> But I was being sarcastic, because, as noted, I think it's
> absurd to call such a rule "censorship," just as it's
> absurd to call banning someone for overposting "censorship."
>
> > You declined to address any other issue of censorship, or
> > possible censorship. By leaving out a crucial part of the
> > discussion I accused you of twisting the discussion, in
> > such a way, that it made no sense to me.
>
> You're a careless reader. You got two points of what I
> wrote very wrong, as I noted above. Of course what I
> said made no sense to you; you misread it. If you don't
> understand something, ask for an explanation. Don't
> accuse the other guy of "twisting the discussion" unless
> you're first clear about what they actually said.
>
>
>
>
> > And yes, I am sorry to say, that my appreciation of your
intellectual
> > integrity has gone down several notches because of this.
> >
>
