+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 12 18 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 346

Thread: The 'censorship' discussion

  1. Link to Post #21
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,889
    Thanks
    23,124
    Thanked 50,806 times in 8,595 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I do my own censorship (for want of a better word)
    Dont even know what Q is.
    Never visited a Q thread even though the opening page was saturated by the Q posts.
    Choice choice choice.

    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  2. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), drneglector (13th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), Franny (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), KiwiElf (11th July 2019), Kryztian (15th July 2019), Nasu (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), sunwings (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), what is a name? (11th July 2019), Wind (11th July 2019), Words of Joy (12th July 2019)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3,231 times in 562 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    Quote Posted by waves (here)
    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend

    Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

    Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

    I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
    I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
    Nothing will change without a big house cleaning if those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.


    fair enough!

    but the Q folks are thinking the same exact things about you, just for the opposite reasons.

    it's an emotional and intellectual wash. invectively hammering home the same points ad nauseum won't help

    we may not be able to make any head-way here, but let's not make things any worse! there's a big difference between mere tension and all out warfare. if we can merely keep it at the tension level, perhaps we will have succeeded. we don't need to be killing each other here
    But you'll just keep spinning wheels without getting real, the tension is for keeping trying to keep a lid on truth. The intelligent minds here have no more doubt about Q as a very dangerous and unhealthy psyop. Period.

    So I really wish the denial would stop. It's not like there any equality in the maturity/education level of the two sides, even Bill has used the term 'cognizant dissonance' and meant it strongly.

    What that means is the non-believers very much understand what has convinced Q believers to buy into the entire Q thing and why they've fallen for all the related cultish issues. I and my peers could discuss it for hours with examples galore.

    But not ONE of the Q-believers truly understand the what is so convincing to non-believers - none could explain with a humble heart what is so intelligent and reasonable to the other side - nor do they have ANY interest.

    They're not interested in learning it. It would take a lot humility and self-analysis. It's a deep mix of all the social engineering crafts many of us have been learning about for years - a very complex issue that requires knowledge about numerous facets of history, mind control history, cult history, politics and programming and more all in one big soup.

    So fixation combined with obliviousness to anything outside of it is called cognitive dissonance. And the fixated are going to piss and moan and play the victim and get mad and get arrogant and feel censored blah blah blah.... and they do not represent the kind of open mind, the truly educated in mind control, resistant to cult, the resistant to programming, the curious and willing to learn minds Avalon once attracted.

    So the truth is Avalon has a small faction of extremely fixated and deluded minds trying to make you all feel guilty for not giving them a platform to keep feeding their unhealthy addiction and it's never going to resolve.

    You have to make a choice. You can create an inviting place that attracts and keep mature minds as members or you can attract more and more fixed, dissonant minds who are demanding, uncooperative, need lots of babysitting and get pissed when someone enters their thread to challenge them.

    Anything untrue about any of that?
    Did I write a poor me, poor victim message here. NO.

    If the above is the truth, the only question is now what do you do.

    I say Avalon needs to make a choice for healthy or unhealthy.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to waves For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019)

  5. Link to Post #23
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th February 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Age
    35
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    7,622
    Thanked 5,461 times in 907 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (post 158) and here (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

    You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden weíre the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.

    Unless you had any other concerns you wanted addressing, I donít recall hearing anything else from you after that exchange of posts though. Until you jumped back on the thread to start calling Q people Ďparasitesí that is.

  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Jayke For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (11th July 2019), Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Jad (11th July 2019), KiwiElf (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), Star Tsar (11th July 2019)

  7. Link to Post #24
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3,231 times in 562 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Jayke (here)
    Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (post 158) and here (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

    You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden weíre the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.
    I really don't understand how our exchange 8 months ago has what to with the big picture I'm trying to paint currently after all the changes and escalation since. I did not use the phrase 'ignoring my concerns' and really don't know what you are specifically referring to.

    Really wish you had read the whole thing, your reply doesn't give me any sense that you understood anything I said.

    I used the word deluded because someone is deluded when they believe something despite being totally unaware of other facts that are necessary to a correct decision - and the additional facts, if included, change things enough to create good reasons for not believing the same thing.

    I'm saying the Q believers have very deliberately shut off any effort to understand all the additional facts that changes everything for the other side. Whereas the non-believers do understand all the reasons that have convinced the believers. That's the big difference between the two sides.

    Do I need to say it again? The non-believers fully understand what is convincing to the believers and the believers do not understand what is so convincing to the non-believers. The believers then want to be left alone, not questioned, not challenged, and get extremely indignant when anyone doubts them. They also bring that indignant mindset to other threads too. To me that's when forum behavior becomes unhealthy, then turns parasitical - spreading unhealthily too.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to waves For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019)

  9. Link to Post #25
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th February 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Age
    35
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    7,622
    Thanked 5,461 times in 907 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by waves (here)
    Quote Posted by Jayke (here)
    Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (post 158) and here (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

    You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden weíre the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.
    I really don't understand how our exchange 8 months ago has what to with the big picture I'm trying to paint currently after all the changes and escalation since. I did not use the phrase 'ignoring my concerns' and really don't know what you are specifically referring to.

    Really wish you had read the whole thing, your reply doesn't give me any sense that you understood anything I said.

    I used the word deluded because someone is deluded when they believe something despite being totally unaware of other facts that are necessary to a correct decision - and the additional facts, if included, change things enough to create good reasons for not believing the same thing.

    I'm saying the Q believers have very deliberately shut off any effort to understand all the additional facts that changes everything for the other side. Whereas the non-believers do understand all the reasons that have convinced the believers. That's the big difference between the two sides.

    Do I need to say it again? The non-believers fully understand what is convincing to the believers and the believers do not understand what is so convincing to the non-believers. The believers then want to be left alone, not questioned, not challenged, and get extremely indignant when anyone doubts them. They also bring that indignant mindset to other threads too. To me that's when forum behavior becomes unhealthy, then turns parasitical - spreading unhealthily too.
    Ok, can you point me to where youíve stated what it is specifically you find so convincing to non-believers? Iím all ears and happy to address your concerns.

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jayke For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), KiwiElf (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member Jad's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th June 2011
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    1,810
    Thanked 1,471 times in 168 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Itís a nice example with the Dolan reference, even David Wilcock charges people for his ďascensionĒ mechanics although they didnít seem to work on him to begin with but thatís another story. Which brings me to my point which is itís kinda of an oxymoron effort to try to save humanity when you put the solution behind a paywall or something like that.

    Again I am not pro Q or pro Trump or any politician, I am pro information. And with information comes also misinformation. Also misinformation can be achieved by withholding certain information and thatís what Q does too wether its fans accept that or not. So thatís why I feel the best way to deal with this Q phenomenon is to be transparent with it and present the information objectively. Thatís what been happening on the Q thread until the Q haters started expressing their personal biases and started the childish name calling.

    Which brings me to the mods, and I have full respect for all of them and their daily efforts in taking care of our precious little online oasis. I donít care what domain or arena we are in, the mods/refs need to be transparent at ALL TIMES and not pick sides. They canít cherry pick when they want to be transparent or not. They added the ignore button to help members choose for themselves what they want to read or not and I commend them for that. But the fact that they chose to hide the Q threads from public view seems to me like they chose a side and they are setting a dangerous precedent here. A Mod should always be neutral and transparent or else he/she is nothing but a regular member with extra privileges.

  12. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Jad For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), KiwiElf (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), PurpleLama (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #27
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    2nd May 2014
    Language
    English
    Posts
    995
    Thanks
    4,306
    Thanked 4,302 times in 905 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    To answer Bill's questions my answer is no and no.

    Paywalls help pay the bills for Ďoriginalí content should anyone wish to pay for it as well as protecting it from any future censorship.

    Google can easily censor search engine results and more but are less likely to do so when sensitive information is not directly in the public domain.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to yelik For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Kryztian (15th July 2019), muxfolder (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #28
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,889
    Thanks
    23,124
    Thanked 50,806 times in 8,595 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Tongue in cheek
    I might have got fed up of Q posts monopolizing the opening page.
    Avalon is so much more than that.
    Thankfully I can find any section in this forum that I want without minding about whats on the buzz thread.
    Q can be front page (headlines) but there is plenty of interesting information to be found in Avalon.
    Moderators have a ifficult job I have nothing butpraise for them --I think they areas neutral as can be--the put Avalon ahead of their own preferences as far as I can see.

    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), AutumnW (11th July 2019), Clarity (14th July 2019), Constance (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Hervť (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Ken (11th July 2019), Sophocles (12th July 2019)

  17. Link to Post #29
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    20,032
    Thanked 8,965 times in 1,125 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Can we all agree that, if nothing else, it has the appearance of being censorship/quarantine?

    The timing doesn't help calm things down. The proofs that this is no larp are coming out now. The Jeffrey Epstein indictment thread is on the front page...big news. Yet those that read the Q drops knew this day was coming well over a year ago...and that what has been released to the news is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. NXIVM? Yep, knew that, too. What's coming next? Yep, know what to look out for. Coincidence? I think not.

    To make a case against someone, there are times the 'intelligence' gathered cannot be used. Sometimes you need the information that can be found in the public domain. That is where the autists come in. They will dig and dig and dig until they find every scrap of information they possibly can...and that takes time. It also takes time to build a case for indictment.

    Q has the appearance of being a larp. Time will tell if it is one, or not.

  18. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to janus For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jad (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), PurpleLama (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    11,623
    Thanked 10,449 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by waves (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon....
    Dead wrong, it was about the gatekeeping. Non-cult members were upset because Paul put a lock on his cult's thread and for the first time Avalon had a controlling thread gatekeeper kicking out valid, intelligent challengers..... the gatekeeper then even chased the people where he kicked them to and pushed HIS pro-Q opinions on them there. If you all are honest, Paul was the biggest factor in the alienation of longtime very lucid minded members with this behavior.

    He more than anyone fomented a cult by locking the gate around a bunch of hopelessly cognitive dissonant people to gather tight, put fingers in their ears to valid challenges and have a superiority party, giddily repeating memes and fiercely glorifying and defending a savior. Funny how only the butt hurt indoctrinated are playing the victim and whining that Avalon owes them a public stage.

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.......
    In other words, you have chosen to completely ignore all the content of the threads discussing the long list of reasons why Q is a psyop and hoax by longtime respected Avalon members and Bill. And you forgot cult, larp and criminal enterprise.

    After you can actually list those reasons other members think Q is a psyop... because you are at Avalon to learn, not stick your head in the sand and blindly defend a fixed opinion missing tons of info... right?...then please list for us what you still think those 'irrational accusations' are.
    There are a lot of inaccurate, or skewed perceptions in these comments.

    And I'm not sure Paul's character ought to be maligned like this.

    From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

    Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

    Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

    For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

    He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

    And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

    Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

    It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

    I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

    Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

    Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.

  20. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), PurpleLama (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  21. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    21st July 2010
    Age
    33
    Posts
    604
    Thanks
    294
    Thanked 2,729 times in 511 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Lost N Found (here)
    Quote Posted by Savannah (here)
    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

    How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

    Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.
    Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.
    I completely agree with you Savannah. Here is what I see on this forum atm with regards to censorship. First of all The Q thread was at the top of most threads simply because it is a worldwide happening in the minds of the masses. It has been called all kinds of nasty things because the people that are doing that are afraid to step beyond their locked up little minds of safety. They don't want to be free, that is just my thought in sight. They will do anything to keep anyone from leaving the plantation, so to speak. We all have seen and read about how that works because most of these people have been psyoped with their own brand of so called enlightenment. So they project hatred and fear upon the slaves that are breaking the chains.

    okay, so the Q thread has over 700.000 views and over 10,000 posts, I believe I heard one of the anti-Q mods, yes I am saying one of the moderators of this forum state that that is a problem in there bling eyes. They can't have something as open as freedom and good will or a warrior against all the corruption in this very sick world being so open to the public because it could be dangerous to them and this forum. Geezus, and I thought the very concept of this forum was free thought and good debate about most everything. But it would seem someone is jealous of the success of the Q phenomenon. Can't have that can we. So I see all these mods jump on the Q folks and cause the problems that they say the Q thread is causing. Somewhere I read something that discussed the Mods as being non partisan and just trying to keep the forum within the guidelines. That is clearly a total lie to me as I have see most of if not all of the mods that are now in control and running this gulaq as totally partisan in their beliefs. So the hypocritical jibber jabber we see from them is what is tearing this forum apart or began to.

    The kind of thinking and actions taken by the mods and the few members that whine and cry and call the Q folks foul names and spew hatred at a majority of members is the same kind of thinking that resided in Pot Pol, Stalin, Hitler, Mau ce taung. not sure if that is spelled right, Mousilini, and many more dictators of the times. I am saying that is the thinking. We see this big time in the fakebook, Google, Youtube, twitty and instagram and many more of the big tech platforms today. This is very dangerous thinking folks and you all know it or maybe you don't in which case I am very sorry for you. I am sure you all think you are doing a great service to this forum but you are not and I mean definitely not. Your act just like mini brown shirts of the Hitler regime or other minions of the dictators that murdered their way to the top of the heap. It all started with a simple censorship of hiding something or anything away from the public all in the name of CONTROLLING THE NARATIVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Its all bull sh*t and you all know it.

    I would have to ask if you were censored of any of the threads you partake in and or believe in would you be upset? Would you scream as loud about that on your own person? Why is it that you scream so loud about Q and Trump and yes I am using the TDS word so don't go ranting off the sidebar. It won't harm you. And you scream and rant and say the Q folk are being mean to you when it is you being mean to them. How is it that this forum did a 180 in its principals? Once you decided to hide the Q thread that was a major success and I am sure had a huge viewing by the public. Your turned yourselves into that dictatorial mind set.

    You made all kinds of excuses of why you did what you did but none of it made any sense. It stuck out like a CYA to most of us. And to make things worse you started created more threads that dealt with Q all the while you cried and moaned about to many threads relating to Q. Gawd, what kind off crap was that? And then you had to make more excused for doing all of that and made it seem like you might be sorry. More crap piled upon more crap is all you have succeeded in doing. I finally understand why those mods left in a group and I understand why Paul left also. and now look you are making mods out of anyone that fits your little coven. Well that is enough of my rant and rave. sorry for going off but I have been watching all this twist and turn and it seems that it could have been left alone and none of the problems that were created by a stupid decision to move a very well successful thread into a behind closed door scene (censor from the public) would have ever happened. UN-intended consequences. Maybe the next time one of you mods gets the idea that you know better than anyone else and how others should think and be, you will take a long hard look at yourself.

    So CENSOR is the only word that can be used here in this thread called Censorship. Thank you for listening to me.
    If you choose to censor this rant then it only proves what I have said. Remember freedom of speech?
    Please post one instance where you posts have been altered without your consent?

    Please point to a thread where you are not allowed to participate because a mod thought your opinion was hurtful to people(even if you can source your claim)?

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Praxis For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019)

  23. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    11,623
    Thanked 10,449 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    Quote Posted by Lost N Found (here)
    Quote Posted by Savannah (here)
    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

    How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

    Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.
    Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.
    I completely agree with you Savannah. Here is what I see on this forum atm with regards to censorship. First of all The Q thread was at the top of most threads simply because it is a worldwide happening in the minds of the masses. It has been called all kinds of nasty things because the people that are doing that are afraid to step beyond their locked up little minds of safety. They don't want to be free, that is just my thought in sight. They will do anything to keep anyone from leaving the plantation, so to speak. We all have seen and read about how that works because most of these people have been psyoped with their own brand of so called enlightenment. So they project hatred and fear upon the slaves that are breaking the chains.

    okay, so the Q thread has over 700.000 views and over 10,000 posts, I believe I heard one of the anti-Q mods, yes I am saying one of the moderators of this forum state that that is a problem in there bling eyes. They can't have something as open as freedom and good will or a warrior against all the corruption in this very sick world being so open to the public because it could be dangerous to them and this forum. Geezus, and I thought the very concept of this forum was free thought and good debate about most everything. But it would seem someone is jealous of the success of the Q phenomenon. Can't have that can we. So I see all these mods jump on the Q folks and cause the problems that they say the Q thread is causing. Somewhere I read something that discussed the Mods as being non partisan and just trying to keep the forum within the guidelines. That is clearly a total lie to me as I have see most of if not all of the mods that are now in control and running this gulaq as totally partisan in their beliefs. So the hypocritical jibber jabber we see from them is what is tearing this forum apart or began to.

    The kind of thinking and actions taken by the mods and the few members that whine and cry and call the Q folks foul names and spew hatred at a majority of members is the same kind of thinking that resided in Pot Pol, Stalin, Hitler, Mau ce taung. not sure if that is spelled right, Mousilini, and many more dictators of the times. I am saying that is the thinking. We see this big time in the fakebook, Google, Youtube, twitty and instagram and many more of the big tech platforms today. This is very dangerous thinking folks and you all know it or maybe you don't in which case I am very sorry for you. I am sure you all think you are doing a great service to this forum but you are not and I mean definitely not. Your act just like mini brown shirts of the Hitler regime or other minions of the dictators that murdered their way to the top of the heap. It all started with a simple censorship of hiding something or anything away from the public all in the name of CONTROLLING THE NARATIVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Its all bull sh*t and you all know it.

    I would have to ask if you were censored of any of the threads you partake in and or believe in would you be upset? Would you scream as loud about that on your own person? Why is it that you scream so loud about Q and Trump and yes I am using the TDS word so don't go ranting off the sidebar. It won't harm you. And you scream and rant and say the Q folk are being mean to you when it is you being mean to them. How is it that this forum did a 180 in its principals? Once you decided to hide the Q thread that was a major success and I am sure had a huge viewing by the public. Your turned yourselves into that dictatorial mind set.

    You made all kinds of excuses of why you did what you did but none of it made any sense. It stuck out like a CYA to most of us. And to make things worse you started created more threads that dealt with Q all the while you cried and moaned about to many threads relating to Q. Gawd, what kind off crap was that? And then you had to make more excused for doing all of that and made it seem like you might be sorry. More crap piled upon more crap is all you have succeeded in doing. I finally understand why those mods left in a group and I understand why Paul left also. and now look you are making mods out of anyone that fits your little coven. Well that is enough of my rant and rave. sorry for going off but I have been watching all this twist and turn and it seems that it could have been left alone and none of the problems that were created by a stupid decision to move a very well successful thread into a behind closed door scene (censor from the public) would have ever happened. UN-intended consequences. Maybe the next time one of you mods gets the idea that you know better than anyone else and how others should think and be, you will take a long hard look at yourself.

    So CENSOR is the only word that can be used here in this thread called Censorship. Thank you for listening to me.
    If you choose to censor this rant then it only proves what I have said. Remember freedom of speech?
    Please post one instance where you posts have been altered without your consent?

    Please point to a thread where you are not allowed to participate because a mod thought your opinion was hurtful to people(even if you can source your claim)?
    Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

    And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

    It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor.

    Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

    It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  25. Link to Post #33
    Great Britain Avalon Member samildamach's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th March 2015
    Age
    52
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 1,302 times in 214 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    As a matter of interest project Avalon is a blacklisted site,
    On my works Wi-Fi it is banned by draytak dns filter.
    Most would consider this perfectly acceptable if I wish to use there Wi-Fi I can only view approved content.
    What if the goverment owned the internet what then?

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to samildamach For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019)

  27. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    11,623
    Thanked 10,449 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by samildamach (here)
    As a matter of interest project Avalon is a blacklisted site,
    On my works Wi-Fi it is banned by draytak dns filter.
    Most would consider this perfectly acceptable if I wish to use there Wi-Fi I can only view approved content.
    What if the goverment owned the internet what then?
    Would you describe the practice of "black-listing" as censorship?

    Yep, private entities are legally allowed to censor.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019)

  29. Link to Post #35
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...
    From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

    Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

    Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

    For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

    He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

    And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

    Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

    It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

    I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

    Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

    Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.
    Just goes to show how different peoples perspectives can be. You could switch the polarity of your opinion of Paul and Dennis, and that's my opinion. I'm very comfortable agreeing to disagree, especially on your quote of 'I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.' which is arguably maligning Dennis. But that's your opinion, fair enough. I'm glad for the chance to share my opinion that I couldn't disagree more, and Dennis did a great thing by stepping up and raising his concern

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), ClearWater (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), Wind (11th July 2019)

  31. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    11,623
    Thanked 10,449 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...
    From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

    Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

    Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

    For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

    He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

    And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

    Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

    It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

    I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

    Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

    Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.
    Just goes to show how different peoples perspectives can be. You could switch the polarity of your opinion of Paul and Dennis, and that's my opinion. I'm very comfortable agreeing to disagree, especially on your quote of 'I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.' which is arguably maligning Dennis. But that's your opinion, fair enough. I'm glad for the chance to share my opinion that I couldn't disagree more, and Dennis did a great thing by stepping up and raising his concern

    Thank you YoYoYo,

    I did not see that in the posts I read.

    Perspective does color how we see things.

    Which is a point many have made regarding this current issue.

    I'm very comfortable holding two or more apparently opposing views without feeling I have to choose one over the other for an extended period of time as I continue to take in information from a broad range of views.

    For some people, that stance is very uncomfortable.

    Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

    He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

    I wonder if this was not noticed.

    If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.

  32. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), ClearWater (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019)

  33. Link to Post #37
    UK Avalon Member snoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th January 2018
    Location
    UK atm
    Language
    Mancunian
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 411 times in 80 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I think you all might be missing a trick
    If a forum has a hot topic that becomes more than one thread and ends up saturating the front page feed with its activity
    then by default after a specified time-frame it then gets moved from the front newsfeed but still accessible through 'new posts'.

    if i was any shop I would rotate my window display.

    p.s no-one has been gagged or bound.. just asked to vacate the window. you all need to let it drop

    §=[Post Update]=§

    the griping is getting tedious and netflix is becoming more appealing

    and yes, having a fist-fight is fun isn't it? spices the day up lol
    Last edited by snoman; 11th July 2019 at 13:45.

  34. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to snoman For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), muxfolder (11th July 2019)

  35. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    11,623
    Thanked 10,449 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by snoman (here)
    I think you all might be missing a trick
    If a forum has a hot topic that becomes more than one thread and ends up saturating the front page feed with its activity
    then by default after a specified time-frame it then gets moved from the front newsfeed but still accessible through 'new posts'.

    if i was any shop I would rotate my window display.

    p.s no-one has been gagged or bound.. just asked to vacate the window. you all need to let it drop
    I've often thought this would be a good idea to implement.

    Right now, the software determines front page based on the software algorithms.

    This means that many very good threads from the past are buried.

    I wondered if there was a way to rotate a mix of threads on the front page in a way that included older threads, too.

    As far as letting it go... the OP question was asked just yesterday.

    It's a fair question to ask, and indicates a willingness to explore the topic.

    There's energy in the conversation, so it continues.

    You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019)

  37. Link to Post #39
    UK Avalon Member snoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th January 2018
    Location
    UK atm
    Language
    Mancunian
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 411 times in 80 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    'You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose.'

    yeah, and the conflict junkies chew on the energy... nah thanks

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to snoman For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019)

  39. Link to Post #40
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

    He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

    I wonder is this was not noticed.

    If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.
    I was fine with Pauls posts in the Q swamp critters thread, it was Pauls posts in the LARP or anti-Q threads.

    In the anti-Q threads he posted his thoughts while ignoring the latest posts, and disregarded the basic underlaying premise the thread was meant to be discussing. This, as far as I see, was the biggest cause of toxicity on the forum regarding Q. When people don't want to believe something a thread is discussing, they shouldn't go on and on about their point, perhaps leave a post or two and move on. It opened the flood gates for other pro-Q people to pile in, because Paul was a senior mod., and also encouraged dismissing basic premise of the thread as impossible etc. No, it is a matter of opinion, and he was welcome to his but why destroy an opposing thread?

    This is why separate threads did not work. You had Paul carefully keeping the pro-Q thread clean, and the anti-Q threads became a 'dumping ground' or a place for pro-Q people to say how the opposing premise was impossible.

    In the end a few pro-Q posters occupied the anti-Q threads to the point it was a joke, and I resigned, because there was no place to discuss anti-Q with other people sharing the same basic premise. The premise was smashed up by those who simply don't want other people to believe it, thinking they had proof, but this was their opinion including Paul.

    When I read pro-Q people complaining, at no point to they seem to realise this awful situation was going on. But life goes on. I put it down to a matter of perspective

  40. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    Aragorn (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Hervť (11th July 2019), Praxis (11th July 2019), Wind (11th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 12 18 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts