Does SuCH need a policy regarding spam?

by Idéfix Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:20 pm

There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:21 pm

I second the motion!

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:22 pm

For those who think my posts are spam:
This forum permits you to ignore my posts. I would suggest that you take advantage of this feature of this forum and put me on ignore. You will then not be reading any of my posts. This childish whining is completely pathetic.

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:27 pm

unless there is a JLF kinda nsfw pics attack, I don't think we need any spam policy.

by confuzzled dude Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:37 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:unless there is a JLF kinda nsfw pics attack, I don't think we need any spam policy.

I concur. May be, limit # of polls a poster can post per day.

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:41 pm

Propagandhi wrote:this is little more than a forum for entertainment. asking for bans etc is extreme and symptomatic of taking things too seriously and a slippery slope when you think abt it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t10884-non-anonymous-or-open-poll#84269

by bw Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:43 pm

panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

i don't think we need any "policy" unless it is some handle like that gentleman from chennai (i forget his name) who kept spamming sulekha.

i view the other post by atcg as just an opinion poll.

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:45 pm

ignoring a user doesn't help. you can still see the threads started by them. you'll still have to scan to find other threads...

rashmun - u pls slow down a littal...so overwhelming
post like really important things that u think are really important and also, if u see not many people are interested or they are talking about stuff thats related to other threads started by you, then do not start new threads. and try to conclude or ignore or sth the continuing threads.

so anything akbar birbal related - one thread
anything dance and bharatnatyam related - another thread
include music also here if possible.
so on and so forth...

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:48 pm

seven wrote:ignoring a user doesn't help. you can still see the threads started by them. you'll still have to scan to find other threads...

rashmun - u pls slow down a littal...so overwhelming
post like really important things that u think are really important and also, if u see not many people are interested or they are talking about stuff thats related to other threads started by you, then do not start new threads. and try to conclude or ignore or sth the continuing threads.

so anything akbar birbal related - one thread
anything dance and bharatnatyam related - another thread
include music also here if possible.
so on and so forth...

if you have a problem with my posts, why not put me on ignore? You will then not be reading any of my posts.

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:
seven wrote:ignoring a user doesn't help. you can still see the threads started by them. you'll still have to scan to find other threads...

rashmun - u pls slow down a littal...so overwhelming
post like really important things that u think are really important and also, if u see not many people are interested or they are talking about stuff thats related to other threads started by you, then do not start new threads. and try to conclude or ignore or sth the continuing threads.

so anything akbar birbal related - one thread
anything dance and bharatnatyam related - another thread
include music also here if possible.
so on and so forth...

if you have a problem with my posts, why not put me on ignore? You will then not be reading any of my posts.

i waise bhi dont read. also, as i said, ignoring doesn't help.

you will have to limit the number of threads u start. i think u talk about pretty much same/similar stuff on all of them. i think u shud consolidate. do it. for valentine's day's sake. it will be so much easier for u to reference back to a post, just imagine! you'll not have to go back n forth on different threads. what say?

maan jao:flower:

by Idéfix Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:10 pm

I agree with VB, CD and BW that we don't need such restrictions in cases like the one we are dealing with.

Others who haven't weighed in on this: please do say what you think.

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi wrote:this is little more than a forum for entertainment. asking for bans etc is extreme and symptomatic of taking things too seriously and a slippery slope when you think abt it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t10884-non-anonymous-or-open-poll#84269

.

by bw Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:12 pm

bw wrote:
panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

i don't think we need any "policy" unless it is some handle like that gentleman from chennai (i forget his name) who kept spamming sulekha.

i view the other post by atcg as just an opinion poll.

oh yeah, muthukumar was his name!

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:16 pm

panini press wrote:I agree with VB, CD and BW that we don't need such restrictions in cases like the one we are dealing with.

Others who haven't weighed in on this: please do say what you think.

Fine....some generosity needs to be shown on him and allow him to stay. Let him stay.

by Idéfix Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:17 pm

bw wrote:
bw wrote:
panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

i don't think we need any "policy" unless it is some handle like that gentleman from chennai (i forget his name) who kept spamming sulekha.

i view the other post by atcg as just an opinion poll.

oh yeah, muthukumar was his name!

Oh yeah, Muthukumarr! He was a determined spammer.

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:35 am

The problem really is not Rashmun but our inability to backtrack and read the posts we find interesting, skipping what we deem as spam. Apparently, this software doesn't offer that feature.

I am opposed to censorship of any kind on this site. That includes Rashmun's posts.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:59 am

panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

Admin, I'm shocked, appalled, astounded, aghast, stunned etc. Whatever happened to the most important freedom of speech??

Just because some poster irritates somebody, that doesn't make him a spammer. Asking for a ban on somebody just because somebody finds him irritating is the exact same behavior shown by sundry netas and assorted nutjobs in India that we keep condemning here.

I'm sorry to see you, the pillar of the most important freedom of speech, support the same intolerance that you have often accused the Government of India of practising in the past. This was not expected of you. I'm disillusioned, disappointed, let down etc.

PS: For those who are irritated, annoyed etc, there is a Ignore function. And if they still experience discomfort, a laxative might help.

by Ponniyin Selvan Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:00 am

panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

I do not support any kind of ban. I think if there is an option to hide topics started or comments by a particular poster in the right hand side column, that would be great. regardless of the poster's attempt to garner attention those who want to ignore can totally ignore.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:05 am

panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

I oppose any such "censorship."

There is a tool to ignore such posters. if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:07 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

I oppose any such "censorship."

There is a tool to ignore such posters. if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.

Old friend, I knew I could count on you.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:09 am

I agree with you completely. When I started this thread, I stated my own opinion against this suggested policy. I wanted to address the view that "democracy should overrule my personal preference for free speech" -- that is why I started this thread, so people other than me with my bias against Rashmun can articulate my viewpoint about the long-term policy without coloring it with any bias.

PS: This was a response to Merlot's comment above.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:09 am

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:regardless of the poster's attempt to garner attention those who want to ignore can totally ignore.

Yes. It takes a little bit of will to do this, but it can be done. Or so I hope Smile

.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:11 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.

Yes, I think if all the people who think a poster is spamming put him on ignore, the forum can return to a degree of sanity.

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:11 am

panini press wrote:I agree with you completely. When I started this thread, I stated my own opinion against this suggested policy. I wanted to address the view that "democracy should overrule my personal preference for free speech" -- that is why I started this thread, so people other than me with my bias against Rashmun can articulate my viewpoint about the long-term policy without coloring it with any bias.

Hahaha. After other posters kicked PP on his teeth for attempting to censor my posts and even to ban me he is now reduced to backpedalling and making excuses.

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:11 am

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.
Yes, I think if all the people who think a poster is spamming put him on ignore, the forum can return to a degree of sanity.

Whining again!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:15 am

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

I oppose any such "censorship."

There is a tool to ignore such posters. if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.

Old friend, I knew I could count on you.

hahaha....in my profession we tried to be compassionate towards people with mental health ....they are also human...

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:17 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

I oppose any such "censorship."

There is a tool to ignore such posters. if those 8/10 members put the poster on ignore, it will have same effect.

Old friend, I knew I could count on you.

hahaha....in my profession we tried to be compassionate towards people with mental health ....they are also human...

It is said that those who work with people having mental health problems have a higher incidence of mental problems themselves. It is also said that crazy people tend to think they are sane and other normal people are crazy.

Look after yourself, old friend!

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:50 am

panini press wrote:I agree with you completely. When I started this thread, I stated my own opinion against this suggested policy. I wanted to address the view that "democracy should overrule my personal preference for free speech" -- that is why I started this thread, so people other than me with my bias against Rashmun can articulate my viewpoint about the long-term policy without coloring it with any bias.

PS: This was a response to Merlot's comment above.

Haha..no, the TBT principle is a flawed one. Just because 8/10 people call for public disemboweling of somebody they dislike, the apparent democracy at work doesn't sanctify that barbarity. For someone who has stood up to the principle of free speech through thick and thin, it sure didn't take much to get you off that high horse. Tsk. Tsk.

by Kris Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:08 am

panini press wrote:There has been a suggestion that this community have a new anti-spam policy. The proposal by ATCG is here. The idea is this:

Anyone who considers another handle a spammer can start a non-anonymous poll. If 8/10ths of the members, present and voting over a 4-day period, designate the handle as a spammer, then Admin will issue a "cease and desist" warning to the spammer. If the spammer does not cease and desist, Admin may, at his pleasure, take other steps including banning the spammer.

I personally am not in favor of such restrictions on what people can post here. But I do think that this is a good debate to have. I don't want to say more about my personal views on this because I may be biased against the member in question here.

I have heard loud and clear that several posters have stopped visiting the forum because of what they find spam from one individual. And I think that is a tragedy. One of the most irritating things about old CH was the amount of spam there, and I certainly don't want this forum to degenerate to that level.

What do you think about this proposed policy? What I'd like to do is understand the views of people on the policy itself, not just how it applies to any particular individual. I would also like to hear from more people than have posted on that other thread.

>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:09 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:I agree with you completely. When I started this thread, I stated my own opinion against this suggested policy. I wanted to address the view that "democracy should overrule my personal preference for free speech" -- that is why I started this thread, so people other than me with my bias against Rashmun can articulate my viewpoint about the long-term policy without coloring it with any bias.

PS: This was a response to Merlot's comment above.

Haha..no, the TBT principle is a flawed one. Just because 8/10 people call for public disemboweling of somebody they dislike, the apparent democracy at work doesn't sanctify that barbarity. For someone who has stood up to the principle of free speech through thick and thin, it sure didn't take much to get you off that high horse. Tsk. Tsk.

Your are misrepresenting my statements. I never moved away from the principle of free speech -- I stated my view opposing the proposal clearly in the opening post of this thread.

If my intent was to use spam or privacy violations as bogeymen to restrict free speech -- the way the government used "threat to communal harmony" as a bogeyman for the midnight lathi-charge*, for example -- my actions would have been very different indeed.

* An argument that you bought hook, line and sinker, if I might add.

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:14 am

Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.

i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:17 am

There is no better show on earth than the Rashmun and PP Su-Ch yuddham (except for the street fight in my village).

Rashmun has a right to make an "extremely brilliant person" of himself.

InfoSys Murthy says, I defend your right to disagree as long as you are not disagreeable. (He didn't say he was copying someone else Very Happy

).

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:20 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is no better show on earth than the Rashmun and PP Su-Ch yuddham (except for the street fight in my village).

Rashmun has a right to make an "extremely brilliant person" of himself.

InfoSys Murthy says, I defend your right to disagree as long as you are not disagreeable. (He didn't say he was copying someone else ).

Guruvu-gaaru, you are the most famous connoisseur of such fights on SuCH, so your words mean a lot to me.

I guess one aspect of the discussion here is the right to be disagreeable as well. I think everybody has that right to be disagreeable on this forum.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:21 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!

Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:14 am

panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.

by Kris Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:19 am

goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.

>>>>Now, now I have to beg to differ on this. What do you mean 'occasional'? Smile

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:24 am

Kris wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.

>>>>Now, now I have to beg to differ on this. What do you mean 'occasional'?

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:26 am

goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.

LOL! now how did THAT escape our attention. scratch

by Kris Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:30 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>> My suggestion would be to draw the line at someone trying to sell something ('commerce'). Otherwise, let it be a free-for-all. Those who don't have an interest in something can simply choose not to engage posters on that subject.
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.
LOL! now how did THAT escape our attention.

>>>>Hmm, good question. This gives credence to a theory I have had all along. PP is none other than ----------------------*drumroll*--------'Thanjai ---- Nal-an- kili'. It is all falling into place now. Yessir!

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:34 am

Kris wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.
LOL! now how did THAT escape our attention.

>>>>Hmm, good question. This gives credence to a theory I have had all along. PP is none other than ----------------------*drumroll*--------'Thanjai ---- Nal-an- kili'. It is all falling into place now. Yessir!

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:35 am

Kris wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
panini press wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i agree with kris. spamming for commerce should be dealt with by banning. everything else is OK. i still hope DM continues to visit such and entertain us with his hilarious, animated gifs and post more often!
Yes, and I hope so too.

BTW, I am surprised at the relative lack of attempts at commercial spamming here. I guess that is one of the advantages of being an obscure and standalone small community without any name recognition.

Except for occasional tamil tribune ads.
LOL! now how did THAT escape our attention.

>>>>Hmm, good question. This gives credence to a theory I have had all along. PP is none other than ----------------------*drumroll*--------'Thanjai ---- Nal-an- kili'. It is all falling into place now. Yessir!

I do remember seeing a recent headline to the effect that I am KV's buddy. I understand it all now!

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:00 am

panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:I agree with you completely. When I started this thread, I stated my own opinion against this suggested policy. I wanted to address the view that "democracy should overrule my personal preference for free speech" -- that is why I started this thread, so people other than me with my bias against Rashmun can articulate my viewpoint about the long-term policy without coloring it with any bias.

PS: This was a response to Merlot's comment above.

Haha..no, the TBT principle is a flawed one. Just because 8/10 people call for public disemboweling of somebody they dislike, the apparent democracy at work doesn't sanctify that barbarity. For someone who has stood up to the principle of free speech through thick and thin, it sure didn't take much to get you off that high horse. Tsk. Tsk.
Your are misrepresenting my statements. I never moved away from the principle of free speech -- I stated my view opposing the proposal clearly in the opening post of this thread....

Ok. I do plead guilty to an irony in tone, but I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I haven't followed the other thread(s), so I might have misunderstood. But looking at just the optics of this thread, and at what you said (marked in bold), it seemed to me that having expressed your personal disagreement with ATCG's suggestion, you were willing to set aside your personal belief in this very important principle and go along with the wishes of the majority if they wanted a policy of banning annoying posters. And that sure surprised me.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:19 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I haven't followed the other thread(s), so I might have misunderstood.

Yeah, if you follow the two links I gave to another thread in the post above, it should make things clearer.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:it seemed to me that having expressed your personal disagreement with ATCG's suggestion, you were willing to set aside your personal belief in this very important principle

No. As I said in the other thread before creating this thread, I just wanted the free speech side of the argument articulated clearly, and that is why I created this thread. Given my history with Rashmun and potential bias, I wanted others who stand for free speech to speak up. I am glad that has happened on this thread as I had hoped.

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:20 am

panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:I haven't followed the other thread(s), so I might have misunderstood.
Yeah, if you follow the two links I gave to another thread in the post above, it should make things clearer.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:it seemed to me that having expressed your personal disagreement with ATCG's suggestion, you were willing to set aside your personal belief in this very important principle
No. As I said in the other thread before creating this thread, I just wanted the free speech side of the argument articulated clearly, and that is why I created this thread. Given my history with Rashmun and potential bias, I wanted others who stand for free speech to speak up. I am glad that has happened on this thread as I had hoped.

If a clear majority of forum posters would have wanted my exit, you would have promptly banned me. Who are you trying to fool now?

by Guest Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:I haven't followed the other thread(s), so I might have misunderstood.
Yeah, if you follow the two links I gave to another thread in the post above, it should make things clearer.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:it seemed to me that having expressed your personal disagreement with ATCG's suggestion, you were willing to set aside your personal belief in this very important principle
No. As I said in the other thread before creating this thread, I just wanted the free speech side of the argument articulated clearly, and that is why I created this thread. Given my history with Rashmun and potential bias, I wanted others who stand for free speech to speak up. I am glad that has happened on this thread as I had hoped.

If a clear majority of forum posters would have wanted my exit, you would have promptly banned me. Who are you trying to fool now?

On second thoughts, perhaps it was not about banning me, but about throwing mud at me.

----
Don't agree with this ignorant mud-boy. His job is to toss around mud, hoping some of it sticks around. Probably a hired help!... was brought up in a brahmin family but now he has become an atheist. But that probably is not just his fault alone. He grew up (as he indicated before) in a family of brahmins, who used to mispronounce the Sanskrit words and not understand properly the meaning of even those Vedic shlokas which were part of their priestly recitations. So you see, based on his family’s poor Vedic knowledge, anything related to the Vedas now is type of a revelation to him and totally unbelievable. Considering from where he has started, it’s hard to take his comments seriously or feel offended by his questions.

by Sponsored content