Banned posters

[Tawasakm]

RB,

I may be wrong but I believe that Craig Read was banned for infringing on copyright laws. If I understand correctly what occured he was found to have posted somebody elses work and claimed it as his own.

Hope that clears things up.

August1991, I respect your views but I respect the structure of this forum more. You may believe that no harm may come to somebody via the internet. That may be true. But harm can come to the quality of discussion. It is this that Greg seeks to protect. In any event it is his choice and his alone.

[daniel]

I remember Craig as a master of name-calling. So to ban him for plagiarism is like convicting Al Capone for tax evasion.

As for MapleSyrup, if you find his posts intriguing and worth debate, then join in. But if you find him trolling, just do as the rules suggest and ignore his posts.

[Slavik44]

I agree with eureka.

If I look through this thread, the worst I can find is that MS used the term "whitey" and used the term "scumbag" in reference to the Catholic church. It was noted that MS started threads but often didn't follow up debate.

And for this, MS is banned?

Admittedly, Greg apparently warned MS on several occasions about a possible ban. (Warnings about what?)

I repeat again: this is only an Internet forum. It is impossible to cause real harm to anyone here. It is difficult to disrupt discussions. In practical terms, this forum is so small that we self-regulate. Occasionally, a true whacko shows up and then Greg gets rid of the poster (if the poster hasn't already left).

New ideas often come from diverse sources. It is one reason I participate in this forum.

I disagree with Greg's decision to ban MS. I am surprised that it is a permanent ban.

IMV, this ban is not right.

In all honesty this is greg's forum and he is free to regulate it however he wants.

[Cartman]

Slavik44

In all honesty this is greg's forum and he is free to regulate it however he wants.

Hugo

It is a fact that these forums are a private enterprise and Greg can run them however he sees fit.

Greg does a good job moderating here, but I challenge the assumption that he does not report to anyone. In fact, I believe that is partly why he tries to keep the site clean. My understanding is that this site was created by the political science department of the University of Lethbridge; a public institution. Or is it a "fact" that it is now a private institution with no tax dollars funding it?

[August1991]

My understanding is that this site was created by the political science department of the University of Lethbridge; a public institution. Or is it a "fact" that it is now a private institution with no tax dollars funding it?

I imagine that this Internet forum is entirely funded by taxpayers' money.

Well, the CBC is entirely funded by taxes, and yet the CBC keeps refusing to allow me to read my version of the news.

The University of Lethbridge is largely publicly funded but it refuses applications to study there.

A publicly funded service does not mean any Canadian can use the service freely.

In all honesty this is greg's forum and he is free to regulate it however he wants.

Here, I have the same suspicion as Cartman. Greg must answer to someone.

[Greg]

Just to clear a few things up,

In all honesty this is greg's forum and he is free to regulate it however he wants.

As Project Manager for Maple Leaf Web (and all of our other web properties) I am given full discretion and authority over any activities that take place in these forums.

My understanding is that this site was created by the political science department of the University of Lethbridge; a public institution. Or is it a "fact" that it is now a private institution with no tax dollars funding it?

Maple Leaf Web is funded entirely by private contributions from three charitable foundations and has never accepted funding from any level of government. The Univerisity of Lethbridge only provides Maple Leaf Web with administrative support, network access and office space.

Greg must answer to someone.

True - I answer to a board of directors who assess the quality of the website as a whole.

No hidden agenda here or outright dictatorial control - its just me trying to make sure the forum as a whole survives the outbursts of certain individuals.

[caesar]

We had a much more regulated forum with Foreign affairs; it did get rid of the people who come just to instigated trouble and led to a very lively and interesting discussion and when we reluctantly had to say goodbye; we all had respect for each other on both sides of the issues. More regulating only leads to more serious discussions as long as it is consistent. Otherwise all of us can follow that return insult path.

[daniel]

Although the internet is a big place, would it be possible those who join discussion forums for the sake of disrupting them and then getting banned are the same perhaps same group of people who continuously hop from one forum to the next?

[August1991]

Although the internet is a big place, would it be possible those who join discussion forums for the sake of disrupting them and then getting banned are the same perhaps same group of people who continuously hop from one forum to the next?

Maple Syrup posted frequently here for about a year and then s/he was banned.

We had a much more regulated forum with Foreign affairs; it did get rid of the people who come just to instigated trouble and led to a very lively and interesting discussion and when we reluctantly had to say goodbye;

I didn't participate in the Foreign Affairs forum but I read the remnants. The idea irritates me to no end. It is another form of lobbyism. Think: If it works, rich people will hire shills. Or worse, they'll influence the moderator.

Free markets allow free entry. And the most important market for the future is the market of information. The Internet lowers the transaction cost for information.

[Greg]

Maple Syrup posted frequently here for about a year and then s/he was banned.

What makes you qualified to make that accusation?

[caesar]

I didn't participate in the Foreign Affairs forum but I read the remnants. The idea irritates me to no end. It is another form of lobbyism. Think: If it works, rich people will hire shills. Or worse, they'll influence the moderator.

Not at all. You just had to use a little intelligent research and not make wild statements or abusive remarks if you wanted to stay on the forum.

As for bribing the moderator; sounds like a sour grapes excuse.

[August1991]

Maple Syrup posted frequently here for about a year and then s/he was banned.

What makes you qualified to make that accusation?

I guess my qualifications are that I have a laptop and an Internet connection.

Accusation? Uh, was my comment an accusation? I thought it was a statement of fact.

Sorry Greg, I don't get your point.

daniel referred to posters who briefly join forums with the purpose of being disruptive. I don't think Maple Syrup fell into that category.

[August1991]

I didn't participate in the Foreign Affairs forum but I read the remnants. The idea irritates me to no end. It is another form of lobbyism. Think: If it works, rich people will hire shills. Or worse, they'll influence the moderator.

Not at all. You just had to use a little intelligent research and not make wild statements or abusive remarks if you wanted to stay on the forum.

As for bribing the moderator; sounds like a sour grapes excuse.

Ultimately, elections (not Internet forums) are when ordinary people exert power over politicians.

I'm well aware that politicians frequently consult ordinary people in many ways.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of bureaucrats answerable to politicians operating an Internet forum. One reason is because of moderators. Should a government bureaucrat have the right to silence a citizen?

[RB]

I may be wrong but I believe that Craig Read was banned for infringing on copyright laws.

Do you think quoting a person’s name next to some writing saves and protect from infringement of copyright?

I think Read was serious and posted lots for a long while – so is it likely that he knew the rules? perhaps an oversight of omission, or careless error then.. So now he was allowed to calm the outrage and he just got booted.

I remember Craig as a master of name-calling.

Reference: Read:

He usually attacks the idea of the poster but also never minces with incisive and penetrating words. Admitting, the postings were bold; but also the weak hearted did not formulate enough wisdom to neutralize the attacks but only submit to an eventual retreat and to console themselves, “oh, it’s a personal attack”.

Any serious writer is a moralist as any serious writer should be.

I vouch that sometimes not eloquently put; his postings were constructed with flamboyant imaginings.

I mean, here is what we have

- A society

- And then there are the posters

- we have conflicting needs

- we wish to accommodate our conflicts

- we wish to reject our conflicts

- we wish to dispute our needs

Look, I have learnt a while back to appreciate all kinds of writings literally and otherwise. When my daughter then age 4 was in Sr. kindergarten, I happen to be in the class while the kids were tracing over some real wacko letters in my mind was a waste of time and tax payers money and so I questioned it. Well, needless to say, instead of linear limitless thinking and the fastest way to get the perfect letter X, exposure to different styles would encourage all kinds of writing in all creative forms for the impressionable. I never forget.

So, here are the Mapleleafweb serious posters writing about society, its issues and how they themselves fit into the scheme of things or how the issues fit.

YES…it is one common theme with many variations, many different ways of writing and many lenses to look for a clearer vision.

I felt the banning choice for both folks was between political incorrectness and disappointment.

[Cartman]

daniel referred to posters who briefly join forums with the purpose of being disruptive. I don't think Maple Syrup fell into that category.

You mean like the responses to this?

August wrote:

There is much here that I agree with, if not all...I note only that Layton prefers to ignore why this is a controversial issue. It is controversial because many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

B.Max

Joined: 2-January 05

uncomfortable would be an understatement. The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

And yet another bold response.

I don't have to be lord high of anything to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people...

That idiot trudeau brought this grief on us by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country. The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat. It's one of the reasons that those who can take their kids out of the government brainwashing institutions to home school them.

Interesting how expressions of hatred are usually filled with errors (spelling, grammar, logic etc).

[caesar]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of bureaucrats answerable to politicians operating an Internet forum. One reason is because of moderators. Should a government bureaucrat have the right to silence a citizen?

Many sides of issues were presented. You were only unposted if you could not communicate in a civil manner. Guess you couldn't make the cut or would find it lacking in "fun".

[Tawasakm]

caesar,

You just had to use a little intelligent research

Is that so? This is not the first time I've encountered you rhapsodising over this other forum and asserting that everybody hah to research and back up their claims. You always manage to sound positive about that fact.

Why is it then that you have so often been resistant when asked to provide evidence yourself? You've argued vociferously against any claim made that you should be required to back yourself up.

So where do you really stand caesar?

[caesar]

Why is it then that you have so often been resistant when asked to provide evidence yourself? You've argued vociferously against any claim made that you should be required to back yourself up.

So where do you really stand caesar?

There is nobody here who does back up their own argument with any facts. It is not worth the time or trouble. This is just forum light. Those who ask for "proof" never post any reliable sources supporting their own argument. You come across as arrogant and with an aggravating 200 questions without stating any position or evidence of your own. You give the impression that you believe yourself to be intellectually the superior of any poster here. If you want to debate "facts" okay, otherwise you are just a waste of time.

[Tawasakm]

So, basically, your stance is that don't need to provide evidence to back yourself up. Thankyou for making that clear.

There is nobody here who does back up their own argument with any facts.

Nonsense. At the very least there are many people who try to do so.

You come across as arrogant

Bit of a personal shot there - and not true in any event.

with an aggravating 200 questions

If your position can not sustain questioning then it is not well thought out.

without stating any position or evidence of your own.

I can only presume you haven't actually read all my posts.

You give the impression that you believe yourself to be intellectually the superior of any poster here.

What I attempt to do is inpersonally apply my knowledge and reasoning skills to my posts and to those of others. I don't believe I've been acting superior. I certainly don't believe I'm superior to anybody here. In point of fact there are posters here who have earned my great respect (and all of them back up their positions I might add).

If you want to debate "facts" okay, otherwise you are just a waste of time.

But I have been caesar - I've been debating 'facts', opinions and theories.

[August1991]

Greg, why was Maple Syrup banned?

My participation on this forum is dependant on your reply.

[RB]

Give it a rest August1991 - I don't believe these decisions will be overturned if that is your hope

Greg has to be consistent in his punishment, and he has some warning system and banning system otherwise there is no respect on the forum

[Cartman]

August1991 said:

Greg, why was Maple Syrup banned?

My participation on this forum is dependant on your reply.

RB said:

Give it a rest August1991

Why should August give it a rest? Why? MS made some mistakes but his contribution was quite enjoyable and valued by many. He added an "edge" to the forum. The ban does not have to be permanent. Greg is a good moderator but decisions do not have to be set in stone and modifying a decision is NOT a sign of weakness. I am sure MS has learned his lesson. I think the question should be: "can MS now be allowed to post despite the mistakes made in the past"?

[Guest eureka]

I am in complete agrement, Cartman. And Auguust, your participation should not be dependant on that. Let's not start a disintegration of a fine discussion centre that has a few wrinkles to iron out.

[Tawasakm]

Actually I agree with RB. There is a more then adequate warning system in place. Its not as if he immediately, without warning or explanation (and while high on cocaine), flew into a rage and banned MS for no reason. It can be a thankless job being a moderator. As best I can determine Greg moderates impartially, with a thick skin, and with reasonable warnings with explanations given. He really does seem to moderate according to the rules and not his own personal feelings. Lets give the poor fellow a break.

[August1991]

Greg, why was Maple Syrup banned?

My participation on this forum is dependant on your reply.

Greg, you offered no reply. But in the interim, you called into question Kimmy's joke about "la liddle guy".

Greg, my 'devise' on this forum is:

Je suis en désaccord avec vos propos mais je défendrai jusqu'à la mort votre droit de les dire.

I will stand for this. I think Maple Syrup has every right to post here.

----

Greg, be Canadian. Be polite. Put an "eh" at the end of your request. Send an e-mail to Maple Syrup, inviting MS to join us. Add an "eh?" to your message.

An intelligent English Canadian woman once explained this "eh" to me. It's the ultimate signal of politeness, civilization.

"Eh?" = "Do you agree?" = "Polite" = "Civilised"

I return to my 'devise'.

Greg, Maple Syrup should be able to post here. If MS cannot post here, then I will not post here either.

This is not a threat. It is why I got involved in Maple Leaf Forum and why I have stayed.