+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 1 4 14 21 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 420

Thread: The 'censorship' discussion

  1. Link to Post #61
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    14,675
    Thanked 15,595 times in 1,957 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    edina, I very much appreciate being able to demonstrate incompatible 'underplaying premise' by answering your questions and talking with you, and finding the edge of disagreement (in a positive way). Just a small point I would appreciate correcting: I actually said Pamphlet and his friends, but that is a crude approximation

    Thank you for the disagreement!
    It helps that we're not calling each other names, and we're respecting each other, right?

    Your correction is duly noted.

    That said, Pamphlet was the person who bore the brunt of those accusations.
    Last edited by edina; 11th July 2019 at 18:59.

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

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  3. Link to Post #62
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    14,675
    Thanked 15,595 times in 1,957 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by RunningDeer (here)
    Paul created 334 threads in the categories listed here, a total of 27,725 posts, 816 of which are on the Q thread. There were a total of 10,214 Q posts. My guess is that Q number is higher because he took over when KiwiElf needed to step away. All while he performed administrative duties, forum maintenance and upgrades, other posts, etc.
    This would have been a catch 22 for Paul, given the agreement that Bill said was made?

    People have expressed this in other places, and I want to say it now.
    I miss Paul.
    He brought different perspectives to the topics discussed in the forum.

    I would love to see him return as a contributing member, without the apparent conflict of interests that Bill noted in his response to ulli.



    Post update:

    Just thought of this. I seem to remember Bill thanking Paul for stepping up and taking on that task?
    Last edited by edina; 11th July 2019 at 20:02.

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

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  5. Link to Post #63
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Age
    50
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    11,988
    Thanked 6,041 times in 938 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.
    Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

    Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

    When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

    Please reply.

    (Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)
    Nope, (In my opinion).. he is just asking that people help him cover his expenses if they're going to benefit from his information. We pay for TV services, some websites, why not ask for people to help pay for your efforts? Right now my funds are a bit tighter than I thought they would be, so I wouldn't pay for something like that. But I do appreciate that others DO offer their sites as you do, for donations. (Thank You kindly Bill)

    Censorship..
    the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
    "the regulation imposes censorship on all media"

    asking for people to pay for the information isn't covered in this definition.

  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    edina (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Frank V (12th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (11th July 2019), Kryztian (12th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  7. Link to Post #64
    UK Avalon Member sunwings's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd May 2016
    Location
    Barcelona
    Age
    37
    Posts
    548
    Thanks
    2,722
    Thanked 3,700 times in 526 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
    2. The reaction is understandable but with time I believe it may be best. (Time will tell)
    3. This is not censorship! Anyone can join and become a member and PARTICIPATE!

  8. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to sunwings For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Clear Light (12th July 2019), Constance (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Frank V (12th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  9. Link to Post #65
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,783
    Thanks
    101,081
    Thanked 117,947 times in 13,528 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    If you see this Paul, rest and we’ll keep the light on for you. xo



    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    People have expressed this in other places, and I want to say it now.
    I miss Paul.
    Last edited by RunningDeer; 11th July 2019 at 20:45.

  10. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), muxfolder (12th July 2019), Pam (12th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Sandy123 (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #66
    Avalon Member justntime2learn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd April 2014
    Posts
    1,542
    Thanks
    49,494
    Thanked 9,729 times in 1,497 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I miss Paul!

    Hello, wherever you are, Paul
    “To develop a complete mind: Study the art of science; study the science of art. Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else” – Leonardo Da Vinci

  12. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to justntime2learn For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), Hym (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), Pam (12th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #67
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,783
    Thanks
    101,081
    Thanked 117,947 times in 13,528 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by sunwings (here)
    1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
    True, sunwings. The Q thread began on October 25, 2017, that’s about 3 month shy of two years. I'm unable to say that about other threads. Maybe some one else has that information.

    Off the top of my head and based on the same criteria, a lot could be moved to members only section beginning with the countless threads of Dave Wilcock, Corey Goode and Blue Chicken gang.
    Last edited by RunningDeer; 11th July 2019 at 20:40.

  14. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), Hym (11th July 2019), janus (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), Pam (12th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), sunwings (12th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #68
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    47
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    7,702
    Thanked 3,252 times in 645 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I miss DNA and <too soon to be spoken>

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

    Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (11th July 2019)

  17. Link to Post #69
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,982
    Thanks
    16,595
    Thanked 23,383 times in 3,734 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I had no idea there was such contention ongoing over on the Q threads. I wont even say why for fear of being drawn into it.

    It is nice to see opposing views acting civil, seems as though it might have been a hard fought battle to get there.

    I miss Paul too. And DNA. And a bunch of others.

    But can we get back to the censorship thing?

    Like what is censorship? Is it the withholding of any information, in any format, regardless of copyright?

    I have trouble splitting hairs so I am truly interested.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    ClearWater (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Strat (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #70
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    20,032
    Thanked 8,980 times in 1,125 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by RunningDeer (here)
    Quote Posted by sunwings (here)
    1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
    True, sunwings. The Q thread began on October 25, 2017, that’s about 3 month shy of two years. I'm unable to say that about other threads. Maybe some one else has that information.

    Off the top of my head and based on the same criteria, a lot could be moved to members only section beginning with the countless threads of Dave Wilcock, Corey Goode and Blue Chicken gang.
    The thread I started (A Place for Dialogue) was moved in less than 1 hour of being created, iirc.

    After it was moved, Bill asked that we not dialogue about Q to allow the forum time to heal...which I honored.

    Shortly after (1 day? 2 days?) three Q threads were moved to members only.

  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to janus For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), KiwiElf (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019)

  21. Link to Post #71
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,070
    Thanks
    21,466
    Thanked 13,660 times in 2,049 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way
    A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue.

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

    So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

    But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

    He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

    I felt that was important. Paul did not.

    All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

    I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

    Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

    Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

    Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. ) We were left guessing.

    It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread, which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

    After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

    His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

    The summary is:
    • You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
    • You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
    • And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.
    There is no need for me to add anything further to Bill's message here other than to say that this is indeed an accurate account, in every way and detail, of what occurred. I am witness to this
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Baby Steps (11th July 2019), Constance (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), Ken (11th July 2019), onevoice (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019)

  23. Link to Post #72
    United States Avalon Member Savannah's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th May 2015
    Location
    California
    Age
    63
    Posts
    266
    Thanks
    1,024
    Thanked 1,731 times in 249 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way
    A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue.

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

    So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

    But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

    He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

    I felt that was important. Paul did not.

    All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

    I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

    Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

    Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

    Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. ) We were left guessing.

    It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread, which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

    After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

    His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

    The summary is:
    • You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
    • You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
    • And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.
    Thank you for clarifying some things that went on behind the scenes, however I remain confused and this information does not appear to justify the censorship, which is an extreme action. From this explanation, the tread was not the problem but moderator that was not acting in an unbiased way. This seems like throwing he baby out with the bath water. However you have clearly indicated your rationale for censoring the thread in a previous post:

    “the crux of the matter is that the 'Q' material has become contentious to a degree that it really doesn't look as if the contention will ever go away. (Until 'Q' does, of course, which will happen sometime!)
    It's not only about 'Q', of course: it's about partisan politics in general, and the unpleasant divisiveness which that all too often engenders. So we might move some other threads there, too.”

    Again censorship is a radical intervention that to me has to be warranted and it seldom can be to those in the alternative community who clearly see this tactic being done by some governments to control people. Thus in this setting it needs to be justified (some may feel it never is and there is some good augments for that, such as self-censoring and crowd policing).

    Since Q was shadow banned so can any other thread or aspect of it, this goes beyond Q and it’s clear from previous posts that is your intent in the future. These tactics create decisiveness, unpleasantness at first but those who disagree will drop off or shut up (sorry not speak up, keep their opinions to themselves). If it’s the quest to have only non-emotional issues discussed in purely intellectual detached almost academic fashion (although some degree of respectable passion appears to be allowed and dignified indignation) with accurate spelling grammar and in the preferred bullet point format, or avoidance of long paragraphs, then the forum will certainly be censored of some information and people. That information may be important or meaningless depending on the persons interests. I may read PA on occasion but don’t think I will remain a member given these new rules. You will not find the truth that way, but you may reinforce your own truth.

  24. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Savannah For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019)

  25. Link to Post #73
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    4,346
    Thanks
    25,170
    Thanked 26,676 times in 4,015 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    ... could never say as eloquently as the post above. PLEASE stay and let your voice be heard...

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019)

  27. Link to Post #74
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Age
    50
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    11,988
    Thanked 6,041 times in 938 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    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. 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.
    Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
    Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.
    Ulli, I have a question, you think the site is censoring the thread now, based upon your reply.. I respect that you feel that way, but I do not follow the thread, and I went there to see what all the fuss was about the other day and I was horrified with what I found..

    Bill has said all along that he doesn't want political debates on Avalon. Period. Perhaps if the members didn't hop that fence, this would not be happening now? What is your take on that?

    If you had a house party and told everyone to stay away from the pool and out of the pool house, and you caught people drowning in the pool, and fist fighting in the pool house, would you allow them to stay, and just "Move it to another room", and hope that behavior stopped? Or would you ask them to leave your party? Come back when they can follow the rules? Some going to the pool just because they see others swimming and they love to swim, thinking surely it is allowed now right?

    In that light,

    Bill owns and operates this site. He has asked multiple times the we please not discuss politics here. Yet people are still discussing the issues.. Whether it is censorship, etc. Completely diverting the focus of what Bill has been asking all along. Please take that subject elsewhere. People are now crying foul, and drowning in the pool essentially.

    Do none of the people posting on those threads care about what Bill Ryan wants on his site? I know if Bill ever told me that I broached a subject that he would rather not have on his site, rather than argue with the man, I would politely apologize and ask him to remove it. If caught in your pool realizing it WASN'T sanctioned, I would jump out and apologize and run away from it embarrassed for my blunder.... It isn't at all about Paul's wishes or anyone else's, and many feelings are getting hurt because that is what everyone is making it about.

    That's like saying.. Paul drowned in the pool but before he died, he waved his hand and said "Party on".. And now everyone wants to support that. Neglecting that the pool was supposed to be off limits..

    It is about the subject matter and what happens when it is addressed plain and simple, you can point to those other things and suggest that now THAT is the problem, but if you deal with the original subject, that is was uninvited discussion to begin with, all the rest falls away, leaving only the damage it caused while it was allowed. Being in personal feelings, and "Sides" only makes the matter worse, thereby supporting the reason for why it never should have been a topic in the first place. This could go on FOREVER if everyone debates about what principle it hits them on.

    This is like those in the pool saying, "It's HOT outside we should be allowed to swim"..

    In even creating the thread, it is really being disrespectful to Bill's wishes of what he wants this site to be, plain and simple. I have seen people get removed for much less. Really it isn't about censorship at all, it is about showing the man some RESPECT. and honoring the wishes for what he wants on his site.

    In this context does it seem like maybe the members are kind of asking from Bill, more than he was offering them? He is the one who risks a death in the pool, for allowing the rest to keep swimming, this is his site.

    I will quote Edina here


    In the case of Richard Dolan, it's his content and he can decide how he wants to manage it. That's not censorship. That's ownership rights of the content creator.

    Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

    I just think that even continuing the thread is being extremely disrespectful to Bill, even when he states that he doesn't want people in his pool, rather than people getting out, they're threatening him with a bad party review, claiming that he is ruining their fun, or worse taking away their right to the water. It is an embarrassment at this point, and sad.

    People are now so caught up in whether not they're being abused by not being allowed to do it, they're neglecting the fact that they weren't allowed in the pool to begin with. Instead they're getting angry when someone pushes them off of the diving board. And complaining to the Mods to stop that person from pushing them in, whn they are shocked they're even in the pool to begin with.

    The mods are then policing the pool party and the hurt feelings, and it has gotten out of hand. Now when I come to the party, All I am seeing in the house is people worn out, and angry about the pool party. I don't swim.. (I do but I won't engage others in matters of politics)

    I would have drained the pool. End of problem. Bill was kind, he MOVED IT.. And now people are pissed because the people on the beach can't watch them swim. What a mess. If it was your house and you said "Stay out of the pool" and all of this happened, would you drain the pool? Or continue to let people get held underwater, and drown? Because members are drowning, never to surface again.
    Last edited by Denise/Dizi; 11th July 2019 at 23:28.

  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Constance (12th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Frank V (12th July 2019), Franny (12th July 2019), Ken (12th July 2019), Kryztian (12th July 2019), onevoice (11th July 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  29. Link to Post #75
    United States Moderator/Guide on Sabbatical
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Language
    English
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,266
    Thanks
    2,790
    Thanked 7,342 times in 1,116 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.
    Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

    Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

    When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

    Please reply.

    (Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)
    I'll address Mariner then you Bill:

    To Mariner, it's a broad subject. I could string a few vulgar words together that would quickly get me suspended and rightfully so. Maybe it is censorship, but I think that's a good thing. 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.

    To Bill regarding Dolan's material, I wouldn't call that censorship I'd call it marketing.

    We're dealing with folks who run their own independent websites and they are free to publish what they wish and how. If one doesn't like it then they can start their own site/forum. Frankly, removing the ability of these independent owners to censor as they see fit is a form of censorship and a stripping of their rights to free speech.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  30. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Constance (12th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Franny (12th July 2019), janus (11th July 2019), Ken (12th July 2019), Rosemarie (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  31. Link to Post #76
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    20,032
    Thanked 8,980 times in 1,125 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
    Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?
    This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

    BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

    If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

    That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

    Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

    Does anyone know?

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

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Constance (12th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019)

  33. Link to Post #77
    United States Moderator/Guide on Sabbatical
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Language
    English
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,266
    Thanks
    2,790
    Thanked 7,342 times in 1,116 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by janus (here)
    If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?
    Unless there were a pre arranged agreement, absolutely. My house isn't your storage facility.

    Quote Posted by janus (here)
    That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?
    I think intellectual property and posts are 2 different things. That being said, yes, all rights are given up regarding posts. If I were to make vulgar calls to action and folks followed through with it the law would look at Bill for allowing it to happen.

    Quote Posted by janus (here)
    Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?
    100%.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Kryztian (12th July 2019), Rosemarie (12th July 2019)

  35. Link to Post #78
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    14,675
    Thanked 15,595 times in 1,957 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by janus (here)
    Quote Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
    Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?
    This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

    BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

    If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

    That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

    Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

    Does anyone know?
    You raise interesting questions here.

    Right now, people who have bought and paid for books on ebook platforms, thought they "owned" the book.
    Only to discover that some platforms have been quietly disappearing books and they no longer have access to books they thought they "owned'.

    And then there's this, Foxie Loxie emailed me a link to this yesterday:

    https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/07/disappearing-ebooks/

    This is why I convert as much as I can into a pdf form and keep it offline to ensure I don't lose access to information as I research it.

    Articles, books, blogposts, ect...
    Last edited by edina; 12th July 2019 at 00:23.

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

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019)

  37. Link to Post #79
    Costa Rica Avalon Member ulli's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Posts
    13,604
    Thanks
    64,597
    Thanked 124,619 times in 13,284 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I’m not on that thread for the politics. I never really really noticed that part. Maybe some of the videos which people share contain political content, but that doesn’t make the whole thread about politics.
    And being accused of bad manners is incredibly unfair, when I have greatest respect for Bill and have defended him many times in the past when members became unruly.

    I’m not even American, nor am I interested in the least in party-political debates. You obviously don’t know me at all.
    Like Dennis, I actually believe in a massive system change which requires getting rid of politicians altogether, and have the people of the earth find a new way of governing themselves.
    But how to get there from here? Lets use some common sense, please.

    To me this Q investigation is about the disclosure of huge worldwide crime networks, that kidnap people and children for organ harvesting and sex slavery. Or think the massive 9/11 crime. Or think the wars that were started for oil in the middle east, and possibly not only oil, but even for alien artifacts that Saddam was collecting. It is disclosing the war that is going on behind the scenes.
    All these terrible crimes against humanity are subjects which I saw being discussed frequently on Avalon before.
    So we have some cynics here who think that no one on that world stage is capable of being good, and seeing those crimes for what they really are, and have the means to bring about law and order, even if it is only temporary?


    If you took a bit more time investigating some of the videos you might even agree with me. I’m there expecting the process of the unfolding of the disclosure we all have been waiting for. What is wrong with that?

    Which included many types of disclosure; the disclosure of alien abduction, secret military projects, MKUltra programming, and hidden government cover-ups. The poisonous plot to kill a large percentage of humanity, and take control of the planet for the next 50,000 + years. So much fear has been thrown at us, all our lives.

    That disclosure is what I see that thread moving towards. That thread which you only see as “political” while at the same time admitting that you don’t even follow the thread.
    Maybe Bill doesnt either, but maybe he is irritated that there is so much activity there. People are getting excited.

    The fact that a boorish man (Donald Trump) who is not even a politician at all took on the challenge to seek the highest seat of power to sneakily combat those same crimes against humanity to me is a very clever act, an act of bravery. He has more clout than any of us here. And I believe he also knows a lot more than any of us, and also has a lot more patience. And he knows how to play dumb and not appear too clever, which to me is the real scoop.

  38. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to ulli For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (12th July 2019), Gemma13 (12th July 2019), gini (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), justntime2learn (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (12th July 2019), mojo (12th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), Pam (12th July 2019), Rosemarie (12th July 2019), RunningDeer (12th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Satori (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019)

  39. Link to Post #80
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Age
    50
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    11,988
    Thanked 6,041 times in 938 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by janus (here)
    Quote Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
    Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?
    This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

    BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

    If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

    That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

    Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

    Does anyone know?
    I don't know honestly. I would guess the one who posted it should be allowed to copy their material. But I do not know what the rules are for others copying material to another site are. Good question actually.

    I believe in the guidelines it does suggest that everything left on the forum becomes the property of the site Avalon. But it doesn't clarify about reproducing it either with or without permission?

    But the fundamental issue I was addressing was that while it is here, it is noted that the agreement is that it belongs to Bill.
    Last edited by Denise/Dizi; 12th July 2019 at 07:39.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Elen (12th July 2019), Frank V (12th July 2019), janus (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (12th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 1 4 14 21 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