Free Speech

[Billionair]

@bloobs. No it’s doing well, If I could have made a move, I probably should have stayed in G longer in March until the bottom, but I bought (a little early). I’ve been buying with these low prices and am way above water and at 3% and the market isn’t even at 0.

If the market continues to achieve pre-Corona levels, (4%)? I could end the year around 10%. That’s a solid win! Had some training come up though and couldn’t watch everyday, so moved to C/S too early. Lesson learned right?

[Aitrus]

Or, will there be lawlessness until you talk to MJ about what you guys are going to do about people disrupting the forums with attacks?

No, I will continue to moderate as I have until I have a chance to speak with him.

Do you see how your blaming the victim has enabled the bully?

Where have I done this? Please support your assertions that I have "blamed the victim".

I see why you've had to deal with repeated dust-ups.

It's a largely thankless job.

[userque]

Or, will there be lawlessness until you talk to MJ about what you guys are going to do about people disrupting the forums with attacks?

No, I will continue to moderate as I have until I have a chance to speak with him.

Do you see how your blaming the victim has enabled the bully?

Where have I done this? Please support your assertions that I have "blamed the victim".

LOL ... very good! Maybe later. I mainly want to bring attention to that assertion. I actually think it's painfully obvious, even to the most casual observer. But until/if I comply with your request, my assertion is properly deemed unsupported.

I see why you've had to deal with repeated dust-ups.

It's a largely thankless job.

I know about that.

Just as LEO's, generally, have a thankless job. Some do get thanks. Some get more thanks than others. Some do a good job. Some do a bad job.

Prior to yesterday, I've posted publicly how I believed you to be one of the better Mods I've seen on the internet.

Yesterday, I made multiple reports of the same rule knowingly (by his own admission) being broken via person attack.

Yet, after all your responses, that same member felt embolden enough do it again shortly after you yourself made a post (indicating that you may be currently watching the forum).

So let me ask you, so I can be clear:

Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forums? How about the other forums?

[Aitrus]

LOL ... very good! Maybe later. I mainly want to bring attention to that assertion. I actually think it's painfully obvious, even to the most casual observer. But until/if I comply with your request, my assertion is properly deemed unsupported.

Take as much time as you need. As you do, just know that I don't view agitators as victims. For many readers, it's painfully obvious what your goals and intentions are.

I know about that.

Just as LEO's, generally, have a thankless job. Some do get thanks. Some get more thanks than others. Some do a good job. Some do a bad job.

Prior to yesterday, I've posted publicly how I believed you to be one of the better Mods I've seen on the internet.

Thank you.

Yesterday, I made multiple reports of the same rule knowingly (by his own admission) being broken via person attack.

Yet, after all your responses, that same member felt embolden enough do it again shortly after you yourself made a post (indicating that you may be currently watching the forum).

I've spoken to Billionair in private. He has apologized to me. It's up to him if he wishes to apologize to you as well if he feels one is warranted. It's not my place to say.

So let me ask you, so I can be clear:

Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forums? How about the other forums?

Yes and no, respectfully. If I see it, I either contact the member privately or say something publicly, just as I did here. I ask for calmer heads to prevail. I've only ever banned a couple of people for that kind of behavior, and only after consultation and support from Skie and/or King.

[userque]

LOL ... very good! Maybe later. I mainly want to bring attention to that assertion. I actually think it's painfully obvious, even to the most casual observer. But until/if I comply with your request, my assertion is properly deemed unsupported.

Take as much time as you need. As you do, just know that I don't view agitators as victims. For many readers, it's painfully obvious what your goals and intentions are.

It's no secret. Assuming the subject you are referring are my Political posts about Trump: My goal and intention is to provide access to information that I believe is relevant, information that some/many may not otherwise come across. For example: if they only watch Fox news.

That is what a discussion forum is for. Posting messages. Some people will only post positive things about a political figure; others will only post negative. Both intents are painfully obvious.

Regardless, personal attacks and name calling should not be allowed, if those are violations.

Yesterday, I made multiple reports of the same rule knowingly (by his own admission) being broken via person attack.

Yet, after all your responses, that same member felt embolden enough do it again shortly after you yourself made a post (indicating that you may be currently watching the forum).

I've spoken to Billionair in private. He has apologized to me. It's up to him if he wishes to apologize to you as well if he feels one is warranted. It's not my place to say.

Thank you, but I'm not really interested if you spoke to him or when you decided to speak to him; nor am I interested in his apology. I'm interested in not having to be attacked for posting news articles.

So let me ask you, so I can be clear:

Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forums? How about the other forums?

Yes and no, respectfully. If I see it, I either contact the member privately or say something publicly, just as I did here. I ask for calmer heads to prevail. I've only ever banned a couple of people for that kind of behavior, and only after consultation and support from Skie and/or King.

Thanks for that answer, but just to be clear, you said "yes" to the first question: 'Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forum.'

Is my understanding correct?

So, if that's correct, then Billionair was allowed to call me names, and I should have just joined him in a signification contest rather than initiate a complaint?

[Aitrus]

It's no secret. Assuming the subject you are referring are my Political posts about Trump: My goal and intention is to provide access to information that I believe is relevant, information that some/many may not otherwise come across. For example: if they only watch Fox news.

That is what a discussion forum is for. Posting messages. Some people will only post positive things about a political figure; others will only post negative. Both intents are painfully obvious.

Regardless, personal attacks and name calling should not be allowed, if those are violations.

Hold the phone a sec...You intentionally post overtly biased media hit pieces designed to make the sitting president look bad...not once but on a routine / continual basis...on a forum dedicated to TSP investing...when said pieces have nothing to do with TSP investing...without providing commentary as to why you believe these media pieces are relevant or important...and see yourself as the victim when people call you out on your actions? Color me flabbergasted.

Yesterday, I made multiple reports of the same rule knowingly (by his own admission) being broken via person attack.

Yet, after all your responses, that same member felt embolden enough do it again shortly after you yourself made a post (indicating that you may be currently watching the forum).

Thank you, but I'm not really interested if you spoke to him or when you decided to speak to him; nor am I interested in his apology. I'm interested in not having to be attacked for posting news articles.

C'mon, userque. You can't possibly expect us to believe that you are posting these articles purely to inform or start a dialogue. If you did, you would use a different approach rather than the one you have chosen to use.

Thanks for that answer, but just to be clear, you said "yes" to the first question: 'Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forum.'

Is my understanding correct?

So, if that's correct, then Billionair was allowed to call me names, and I should have just joined him in a signification contest rather than initiate a complaint?

No, by the strictest sense of the rules as written, he's not allowed to call you names. But since this forum would basically be nonexistent if I banned every person who caused offense, the decision was made to allow some flexibility in discussions. Instead, we would try to calm things down and let the offender know that such verbiage wasn't welcome. I addressed such with him, both in public as well as private. What's not good enough about that to you?

[sconey]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Mark Twain

[userque]

[My bad, got tied up ... I wanted to keep the discussion flowing without added delay.]

It's no secret. Assuming the subject you are referring are my Political posts about Trump: My goal and intention is to provide access to information that I believe is relevant, information that some/many may not otherwise come across. For example: if they only watch Fox news.

That is what a discussion forum is for. Posting messages. Some people will only post positive things about a political figure; others will only post negative. Both intents are painfully obvious.

Regardless, personal attacks and name calling should not be allowed, if those are violations.

Hold the phone a sec...You intentionally post overtly biased media hit pieces designed to make the sitting president look bad

Why do you continually misrepresent what I say? Nowhere did I suggest nor imply that. Are you trolling me Aitrus?

1. I post what I believe to be factual.
2. If it's factual, and it makes a politician look bad, then it is what it is. Bad politicians will ... well ... look bad. Bringing those facts to light is not bad. It's actually good. We should want all the facts regarding our leaders; unless we are just following a man, regardless of his actions, good or bad.
3. Bias is everywhere. We all have it. CNN has it. Fox has it. Bias goes to opinion. Bias can't affect facts. How one interprets facts, sometimes, is a matter of opinion/bias; other times the interpretations are clear.

If someone has a negative opinion, others shouldn't lose sleep over it. They're entitled to their opinion. Whatever I post, you post, fox and cnn broadcast, we are all still free to believe as we want. That's the crux of free speech, manage yourself, not others' speech. We aren't kids with new minds being brainwashed by my posts? Are we?

To be clear, I post what I believe to be factual, that supports my position/beliefs. Anyone is free to disagree, and post accordingly, civilly. As I said previously, I argue my position, it's up to everyone else to argue their own positions.

...not once but on a continual basis...on a forum dedicated to TSP investing

How is this relevant? I'm posting in the proper forum. Now, you've likely instigated another round of those dust-ups you keep having to address. I can hear them now, "STOP POSTING ABOUT TRUMP! THIS IS AN INVESTMENT FORUM, LIKE AITRUS SAID!" Was that your intention? Like when Trump says, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Are you going to moonwalk it back, like Trump did with the bleach thing, and this looting thing?

...when said pieces have nothing to do with TSP investing...

Again, the Anything Goes forum is exactly for pieces that have nothing to do with TSP investing.

without providing commentary as to why you believe these media pieces are relevant or important...

Freedom to speak, includes the freedom to not speak. The articles I post stand on their own. I could recommend a movie in a forum titled: Good Movies, without giving commentary. I could recommend a book, in a forum titled: Good Books, without giving commentary.

If someone wants to look into the movie, or the book, they can do it on their own, or they can ask for the opinions of others. There's nothing wrong with that, and many of those types of lists are on the internet, IMDB has them, for example.

As you've seen, I've renamed the forum to show it generally has no commentary with News posts. So if someone gets triggered because they don't see comments along with the article, they know to avoid the forum.

and see yourself as the victim when people call you out on your actions? Color me flabbergasted.

Since you repeatedly keep saying that I'm claiming I was attacked, let me call a witness: Aitrus, was I attacked?

Again, I was the victim of repeated attacks, nothing else. Again, you're misrepresenting the obvious. I've repeatedly said that I welcome debate. All I did was try to engage Billionair in discussion as to his anger issues, after he attacked me. He started his contact with me by stating that he was gone for awhile, but was back to set me straight, or something to that effect. Had me shaking in my boots actually. I'm still a little traumatized. But I get it, you're still mad.

See how that felt? I could have asked, Are you mad? rather than make a conclusive characterization. Now, you could be mad; but there's not enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.

C'mon, userque. You can't possibly expect us to believe that you are posting these articles purely to inform or start a dialogue. If you did, you would use a different approach rather than the one you have chosen to use.

I merely quoted titles and posted a link to the article. The motive, since I offered no comments, in this example, is whatever the motive of the author is. How is this a crime again? I can't add a motive without adding my commentary.

What approach should I have used? Let me guess, the approach you say I should have used, right. Part of the free speech concept is ... free-ness.

Why do so many care? Read it, don't read it, believe it, don't believe it, ask me about it, don't ask me, counter it, don't counter it, debate me, don't debate me.

Just don't attack me, please. I've been through enough already. Thanks.

Thanks for that answer, but just to be clear, you said "yes" to the first question: 'Is name calling currently allowed in the Anything Goes Forum.'

Is my understanding correct?

So, if that's correct, then Billionair was allowed to call me names, and I should have just joined him in a signification contest rather than initiate a complaint?

No, by the strictest sense of the rules as written, he's not allowed to call you names. But since this forum would basically be nonexistent if I banned every person who caused offense, the decision was made to allow some flexibility in discussions. Instead, we would try to calm things down and let the offender know that such verbiage wasn't welcome. I addressed such with him, both in public as well as private. What's not good enough about that to you?

I explained why I asked you the question, when I asked you the question. Let me know if you want me to repeat it.

And I disagree that there'd be no one left, as people would start to respect the rules as they see them enforced. And you would be less likely to see what we saw recently on this site, imo.

Secondly, every infraction wouldn't have to be a full ban. Timely, consistent, and fair ban lengths would lead to a smooth operation, in my experiences.

Thirdly, it's that 'flexibility' that will cause you problems; for example, a clear rule violation is just that; giving one flexibility, but not the other (or giving the other 'different' flexibility), will cause problems. So, giving everyone the same flexibility essentially means that the rule don't really exist as it is stated; which will lead to other things.

Just my opinion based upon my experiences.

[userque]

Maybe this clip from the right Info Wars will be more easily understood by some here.

Most relevant part starts here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUJ5igZUPpo;t=164

Full Video here:

YouTube Link

[Tomanyiron]

So what do you have to say about college protest and even rioting when conservatives came to talk? Do you condemn that, if so we can agree on something.

Free speech belongs to everyone, but the spoil brats of the academy think they decide who is allowed and who is not.

[userque]

So what do you have to say about college protest and even rioting when conservatives came to talk? Do you condemn that, if so we can agree on something.

Free speech belongs to everyone, but the spoil brats of the academy think they decide who is allowed and who is not.

I believe that the concept of free speech should have applied there as well.

However, I do recognize that the college ultimately has the final say, just as the owner of a website has the final say (subject to any applicable laws).

Likewise, I recognize that the students should have a right to protest (without stopping the speech of others).

And, I recognize that the college can change its decision in the matter, at any time.

Basically, I disagree with the stifling of speech. Free speech is a fundamental American concept, even though it generally applies to the government (restricting the government from banning speech).

I'm always amazed at how often Americans attempt to curtail free speech (in a multitude of ways--not just on websites), while also claiming to be super-duper patriotic.

[ArrieS]

So what do you have to say about college protest and even rioting when conservatives came to talk? Do you condemn that, if so we can agree on something.

Free speech belongs to everyone, but the spoil brats of the academy think they decide who is allowed and who is not.

There is something wrong with this. You are conflating "...protest and... rioting...". They are two different things. You are vilifying both and equating them. You seem to be implying that you should object to both protesting and rioting.

False assertion. Protesting is free speech. There is nothing wrong with protesting a speaker. You don't get to casually lump them together and treat them the same.

So what do I have to say, even though you weren't talking to me. Your very first sentence is wrong.

[Tomanyiron]

Your're right Arrie, I should have picked my words better. Peaceful protest are great, They don't stay peaceful much, seems like. You get a crowd together and they're mad about something. Before you know it the mob mentality starts to take over. I think the well organized ones, like back in the day of MLK had a better effect on making people's minds.

[ArrieS]

Your're right Arrie, I should have picked my words better. Peaceful protest are great, They don't stay peaceful much, seems like. You get a crowd together and they're mad about something. Before you know it the mob mentality starts to take over. I think the well organized ones, like back in the day of MLK had a better effect on making people's minds.

So can you tell me when spoiled brats protested a conservative speaker that turned to rioting?

[Tomanyiron]

Arrie, I can't believe you missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PSYPrE5LrQ