+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 1 6 16 18 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 346

Thread: The 'censorship' discussion

  1. Link to Post #101
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,431 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)
    I've uploaded a few videos to youtube and I don't allow comments because apparently everyone that comments on youtube videos are morons. I don't want to deal with their bull****. Censorship? Yes, and thank god it's an option.
    Yes, thank god that is an option. But that censorship is done by you, on your own channel, taking control of your own content. This matter is quite different.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019)

  3. Link to Post #102
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,439
    Thanks
    74,615
    Thanked 269,884 times in 19,924 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Jad (here)
    Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
    I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

    Like:
    Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

    So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?

  4. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Constance (12th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Jad (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Ken (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019), Yoda (12th July 2019)

  5. Link to Post #103
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,439
    Thanks
    74,615
    Thanked 269,884 times in 19,924 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so donít like to be misread.
    The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust Iím gone.
    The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

    It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

    So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

    Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.

  6. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Billy (12th July 2019), Clarity (14th July 2019), Constance (12th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), enfoldedblue (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (12th July 2019), Franny (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Gracy May (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), Kate (13th July 2019), Ken (12th July 2019), Kryztian (13th July 2019), loungelizard (12th July 2019), muxfolder (12th July 2019), Orobo (14th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019), Yoda (12th July 2019), YoYoYo (13th July 2019)

  7. Link to Post #104
    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 Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jad (here)
    Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
    I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

    Like:
    Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

    So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?
    If you were to take such an action it would need to happen in a way that was consistent with the principles of the forum.

    Also, there would be the problem of many people feeling as if there has been a "break in trust" in that the overall historical agreement was to keep the information open and easily accessible.

    This would become an issue apart from the "censorship" question.
    Last edited by edina; 12th July 2019 at 14:21.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019)

  9. Link to Post #105
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,431 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

    So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?
    An interesting point. I wouldn't count making the whole forum private as censorship. Censorship is more cherry-picking what you do or don't want visible. Blanket privacy however would definitely be a disservice to the viewing public at large. When you remove their access to the content, you remove any incentive to join.

    It would also turn Avalon into a sort of private club, accessed only by special referral. Applications would likely be few and far between. This would lead to intellectual and spiritual stagnation. A true echo chamber. To stay alive, as it always has, Avalon needs a constant flow of information, of ideas and energy, and for that its needs a constant flow of people. Just my opinion.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), Gemma13 (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), muxfolder (12th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #106
    Netherlands Avalon Member gini's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th January 2016
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 251 times in 25 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so donít like to be misread.
    The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust Iím gone.
    The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

    It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

    So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

    Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.
    Bill,I thank you for this post ,because of the clarifying position you have about Avalon not being a platform for partisan polititcal debate.I didnt knew that for sure,now i do. To close all political threads would be a pity in my personal view,but it would indeed neutralize the feelings of choosing sides and biased 'censorship'. Btw i find this a most interesting and refreshing debate.Thanx everybody for being so involved,it warms my heart

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to gini For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #107
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,431 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

    It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

    So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.
    I understand why you'd want to do that Bill, I really do. And part of me agrees, 100%. I don't like the beating of those drums either - I've never owned a drum or any drumsticks of my own. But I imagine it'd be a thankless task to moderate every political discussion of every single kind across the board, because so many things, one way or another, come back to politics.

    What you're trying to do is discipline an unruly classroom after the fight has broken out. Ideally, more rigorous rules of conduct need to be laid down before the students walk in. Not to impose obedience or conditioning, but to inculcate a standard of what is expected. Something that promotes self-moderation.

    Usually Avalon is very good at that. It's a very kind, open, and nurturing space. Q I think has been it's most difficult test. People have drawn lines in the sand, and that's wrong. And I mean that for both sides of the argument. Enlightened civilizations don't even have any lines - not from what I understand. They don't even have politics. The people govern themselves, by governing their own actions, and interactions, and by taking responsibility. I'd much rather see that beginning to take shoot on Avalon once again, rather than the teacher's stick coming out.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  14. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), muxfolder (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #108
    Avalon Member Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2014
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    711
    Thanks
    7,206
    Thanked 4,599 times in 686 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

    As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

    The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.
    So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.
    It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

    Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they?


    Last edited by Aragorn; 12th July 2019 at 15:13.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), Kryztian (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019)

  17. Link to Post #109
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,663
    Thanks
    15,441
    Thanked 8,832 times in 1,595 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Aragorn (here)
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

    As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

    The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.
    So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.
    It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

    Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they?


    I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating? I would certainly think so. I know if I was a moderator I would never moderate sights related to Veganism or animal cruelty because I would not be able to to be objective, unbiased and unemotional. You read a lot in there that I didn't say.

    I find it interesting that it seems hard to understand that something can be defended on principal without being a part of it.

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #110
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    4,346
    Thanks
    25,161
    Thanked 26,651 times in 4,016 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating?

    Quote It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.
    Hi Bill,
    Im sorry if it was any doing on my part that caused angst to anyone but do have a question thats seems begging to be asked. Doesn'tt the responses provided by the mods/admin in this very thread sound political

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), peterpam (13th July 2019)

  21. Link to Post #111
    Avalon Member Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2014
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    711
    Thanks
    7,206
    Thanked 4,599 times in 686 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Aragorn (here)
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

    As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

    The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.
    So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.
    It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

    Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they?
    I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating? I would certainly think so. I know if I was a moderator I would never moderate sights related to Veganism or animal cruelty because I would not be able to to be objective, unbiased and unemotional. You read a lot in there that I didn't say.
    Okay, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying your vantage. But you are (obviously) not the only person who's been "criticizing" Dennis ─ and that's a euphemism for what has been going on here lately ─ and it is all too obvious that (certain) people aren't willing to give him the same credit as they've given Paul.

    Not only that, but they're even overextending the credit given to Paul ─ and for the record, I am speaking of his role as a staff member on account of the QAnon threads now, because Paul certainly does deserve credit for his technical contributions to Project Avalon as an administrator.

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    I find it interesting that it seems hard to understand that something can be defended on principal without being a part of it.
    But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), loungelizard (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019)

  23. Link to Post #112
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,505
    Thanks
    5,636
    Thanked 4,988 times in 1,361 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jad (here)
    Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
    I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

    Like:
    Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

    So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?
    No... I think it'd be better.

    I don't call that censorship... I call that "privileged information"

    If you were privatize ALL the content, robots won't be able to secretly download / catalogue / analyze it (unless they have an account). I imagine it'd be obvious to Admins here if I tried to download/catalogue the entire Member Only area.

    I didn't need to read any postings before I joined either. The introduction on the main page, and referral from a friend were enough to make me know I wanted to join.

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    An interesting point. I wouldn't count making the whole forum private as censorship. Censorship is more cherry-picking what you do or don't want visible. Blanket privacy however would definitely be a disservice to the viewing public at large. When you remove their access to the content, you remove any incentive to join.

    It would also turn Avalon into a sort of private club, accessed only by special referral. Applications would likely be few and far between. This would lead to intellectual and spiritual stagnation. A true echo chamber. To stay alive, as it always has, Avalon needs a constant flow of information, of ideas and energy, and for that its needs a constant flow of people. Just my opinion.
    I read this part afterward, and this is a really good point - there's probably a good many member applications due to the public postings - I just wasn't one of them.
    Last edited by petra; 12th July 2019 at 16:24.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to petra For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019)

  25. Link to Post #113
    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

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    [I][B] Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)



    Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.
    Thanks for letting us know that you are considering closing all the political threads. I genuinely appreciate your transparency about this issue. I hope that you donít go through with it though because the political issues are part of our human experience on earth, and we canít just pretend it doesnít exist. As for the Q material, now that itís in the members area, can we put it under one section called Q research and we can put a red disclaimer on top that states that Project Avalon and BR donít endorse any of this information just like whatís happening on the channeling thread. Again Iím not pro Q or Trump or any politician, but I think the data is very important and who knows it might be beneficial in the future as a case study.

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

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), Valerie Villars (12th July 2019)

  27. Link to Post #114
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,431 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Aragorn (here)
    But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.
    Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

    And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  28. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), Jad (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), peterpam (13th July 2019), petra (12th July 2019), PurpleLama (12th July 2019)

  29. Link to Post #115
    Morocco Avalon Member PurpleLama's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd January 2011
    Location
    Ignoring Your Outrage
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    26,463
    Thanked 32,520 times in 3,936 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by Aragorn (here)
    But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.
    Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

    And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.
    Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

    I like Dennis and Paul, and I've never had any significant disagreement with either of them. That said, in my less than vigilant observation of their interaction with the various aspects of the discussion around Q, Paul's approach seemed the more balanced, the less emotional, of the two. At various times I would find myself in agreement with either man, and no respect was lost from me for either in the event of any opinions expressed that I happened to disagree with. We already lost Paul over this matter, and I wouldn't run Dennis off over what should rapidly be becoming water under the bridge, so to speak.
    God bless the Fae
    God bless Me

  30. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to PurpleLama For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (13th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019)

  31. Link to Post #116
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,431 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by PurpleLama (here)
    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by Aragorn (here)
    But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.
    Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

    And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.
    Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

    I like Dennis and Paul, and I've never had any significant disagreement with either of them. That said, in my less than vigilant observation of their interaction with the various aspects of the discussion around Q, Paul's approach seemed the more balanced, the less emotional, of the two. At various times I would find myself in agreement with either man, and no respect was lost from me for either in the event of any opinions expressed that I happened to disagree with. We already lost Paul over this matter, and I wouldn't run Dennis off over what should rapidly be becoming water under the bridge, so to speak.
    Yes agree totality. I also have a great deal of respect and admiration for Dennis and Paul and everyone else. It's unfortunate they ended up locking horns on this issue.

    I just think that emotion has thrown too much of its weight into reaching conclusions and making decisions, and that's also unfortunate. That's really the point I was trying to make: let's uphold neutrality/transparency and maintain an equitable point of view, at least until the jury is completely out. And I guess that's the crux of the issue. The jury is not out on Q. Not with many of us - we're still working on this - and that needs to be respected (but isn't).
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  32. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Hym (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), PurpleLama (12th July 2019)

  33. Link to Post #117
    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

    Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
    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!!

  34. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Aragorn (12th July 2019), ClearWater (12th July 2019), DeDukshyn (16th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (13th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), PurpleLama (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019)

  35. Link to Post #118
    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 greybeard (here)
    Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
    Chris
    This conversation is supposed to be about censorship.

    It seems Bill is considering some changes in how the forum will operate.

    I think he's putting this out to listen to people's thoughts on the issue.

    The action taken regarding the Q threads seemed to have served as a catalyst for rethinking and maybe re-imagining Avalon.

    It's understandable the catalyst for the topic would slip into the topic itself.

    I may add I consider this a very healthy process.
    Last edited by edina; 12th July 2019 at 17:37.

  36. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), greybeard (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), PurpleLama (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Wind (13th July 2019)

  37. Link to Post #119
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    2,242
    Thanks
    4,090
    Thanked 9,040 times in 1,965 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    It's strange that there is an easy consensus around the Blue Chicken cult and Emery Smith's bogus material, but there is a stubborn resistance by Q-cultists to recognize Q-anon is just as silly and even more counter-productive.

    It's astonishing to me that simply making hoax material for members only has engendered such howls of anguish and sorrow. It's as if Bill Ryan has stolen a Mormon's sacred underpants and forbidden them from going door to door.

    Some people have to just get a grip and get a life!

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    Aragorn (12th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019)

  39. Link to Post #120
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,473
    Thanks
    4,148
    Thanked 9,070 times in 2,143 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I found it interesting that the Q threads were move to members only right after Q was proven hoax beyond doubt. I am against any form of hiding. Including Q thread and I am anti Q right from start. "Let the children learn from their mistakes as long as it does not put them in grave danger". that's is one of my principles which I think applies to Q phenom as well. Is Q putting members in grave danger?

    No to all banning, political or otherwise. Let the members learn from experience rather than curtail freedom which is wrong beyond doubt.

    So my question to myself; What did I learn from this?

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

    Denise/Dizi (13th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Jayke (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), PurpleLama (12th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 1 6 16 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