tallowood wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 12:58pm:


it's not bad moderation. that was in reply to sprint's claim I was avoiding his complaint. I wasn't at all- I just don't spend every second on the forums. that's not an excuse, I just have a life.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH in any society, is basic, it is a foundation, of all the freedoms [which we *think* we have].

In any society of men, if one person [or a one group] is able to restrict [by whatever means] the freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, of another person [or group],
then in effect,
THAT CONSTRAINT makes the person [or group] without the right to freedom of expression the *actual* slave[s], of those persons, who HAVE an ability to restrict freedom of expression.

A ridiculous statement?

Look at the course of the recent election farce, in Zimbabwe.

In effect, such a circumstance [curtailment the freedom of speech], once established in a society, SHOUTS that the views of some persons, are secondary in importance, to the views of those persons who have the power to restrict the freedom of speech, of all others.

....and at that point, REAL, REAL political oppression and tyranny begins.

++++++++



Bigot.

Dictionary,
bigot = = a person who is intolerant of the opinions of others.



Hypocrite.

Dictionary,
hypocrisy = = the practice of claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case.i

Gaybriel,

As the MODERATOR on the "Extremism Exposed" board, it is very clear that you are not impartial.

In many posts on this forum, you have demonstrated your pro-ISLAM bias.

EXAMPLE.....
"Israeli treatment of Palestinians"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229690857/0#0

That is not a problem.

I have absolutely no objection to the 'MODERATOR' of the "Extremism Exposed" board, having a bias.

I am all favour of any and all biases being expressed, and thereby allowing biases to be EXPOSED to the scrutiny of others.

But i would suggest that in acting as a censor [which you are], you are stifling open debate on contentious issues - which need debating.

In your actions of deeming views 'offensive' [and censoring / deleting them], this is not debate, and such an approach can never expose truly offensive views to the open scrutiny of all.

If my views are truly 'offensive', let forum members condemn my views and opinions, openly.

This forum is supposed to be a place where contentious issues can be debated.

In such a forum, if the detractors [of certain comments] have a legitimate complaint, then let them air it [in the forum], and have their complaint tested in debate!
.....FOR ALL TO SEE!!!!

Open societies do not fear the opinions of fools.
....they rather, EXPOSE and laugh at folly!

In any free and open debate, if a 'position' is absurd, if an 'argument' is absurd,
...then the debater is [often] condemned to all,
....WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

And i would suggest that [so called] 'offensive' biases [and as many as possible!!] need to be expressed - AND EXPOSED TO SCRUTINY.

In that way, with evidence and argument presented, others can judge for themselves, whether an expressed bias is,
....reason-able,
OR,
....irrational.


Your role should be, as an impartial MODERATOR.

But you 'responsibility' should not be the role of a 'morality' over-lord, protecting the tender 'sensibilities' of clearly 'suspect' individuals, or regimes, who would wish to avoid criticism and scrutiny - by gagging their critics.

A forum should allow persons to present [supposedly] 'offensive' information, particularly if that information can be shown to be based in truth [i.e. if such information is verifiable].

But as the 'MODERATOR' of this board, and as a person who has clear pro-ISLAMIC and con-Israel biases, it seems clear that you are saying that,
....You can disagree with my biases, BUT, i am not going to allow YOU to express your biases, if they 'offend' me."
[even when the 'biases' of others, are based on truthful information]


In deleting my threads, you are not a MODERATOR, you are a CENSOR, reinforcing your biases, and crushing the right of others to express their own 'biases'.


Gaybriel,

So many people in this world today, hate the TRUTH.

And so often!, where TRUTH conflicts with their own 'biases', they expunge it.


Gaybriel,

People like you are the cause conflicts and wars,
...by establishing and 'enabling' injustice in the world.

How?

Peace comes through justice.

Justice comes when men [and women] freely and openly speak TRUTH.

Its not rocket science.








TWO OF MY THREADS WHICH WERE DELETED.

"Go Israel!"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1230417301/0#0

Where i presented and expressed my bias.
Where i mocked the hypocrisy of Hamas / ISLAMISTS, who openly promote a culture of violence and hatred of non-muslims [i.e. Israel].
Where Hamas / ISLAMISTS hypocritically encourage terrorist acts against Israel, then when Israel is provoked to action, complain, "The Zionists are massacring our innocent civilians!"
I presented truthful information, and examples, supporting my bias,
DELETED.



"The dumb-stick aids US, in fight against terror"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1230414142/0#0

Where i presented and expressed my bias.
Where i mocked the hypocrisy of supposedly devout [but obviously impotent] muslim men, muslim men who were prepared to betray their faith, and betray their confederates [fellow muslims]to 'The Great SATAN', in exchange for Viagra pills.
I presented truthful information, and a BBC news article, supporting my bias,
DELETED.


Bigot.

Dictionary,
bigot = = a person who is intolerant of the opinions of others.








I started a thread which highlighted the lies and hypocrisy muslims claiming to have tolerance of non-muslims, and exaggerating their own 'victimhood', while desecrating burial place of an Israeli patriarch, source of information was cited.
A thread which you subsequently 'locked'.

"Muslim 'impersonators' desecrate grave 'of a Musli"
you stated,
...."there are already threads on each of these issues- thread closed"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229473050/2#2





And, another thread i started, exploring and EXPOSING the expressed views of muslim supremacists, source of information was cited.

"WHEN MUSLIMS TAKE OVER....."
you stated,
"Yadda I have asked you several times to limit your rants about islam to a few threads and not continually make new ones.
thread locked"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1230352849/2#2




Yet you yourself, for example, have started a thread examining the rights and wrongs of the ISRAEL/PALESTINE conflict,
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229690857/0#0

While a thread on this ISRAEL/PALESTINE conflict exists here,
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181878710/0#0

Yadda wrote on Dec 29^th, 2008 at 11:01am:


I will not allow a thread that celebrated the death of civilians. it's as simple as that. you can express your views without so crassly supporting the death of innocent people, which is why I created another thread about the israeli bombings

Quote:


Didn't see what was in the thread, but did you see the IDF video, showing innocent civilians loading Grad missiles onto trucks. Same Grad missiles that were fired into Ashkelon shopping mall in Israel on 29 December 2008.

Police, politicians, clerics, are all in on the joke in Gaza.

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 12:07pm:




And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share...
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools," said I, "you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows."
"Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon gods they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said: "The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls,
And whisper'd in the sound of silence."
-- Paul Simon, 1963



Whispering in the sound of silence....


BEYOND REDEMPTION
http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim148.htm

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 12:07pm:





Gaybriel,

Here is my argument against your position, and against your censorship of my expressed views.

It [is, that your position] is based on your wilful ignorance of what ISLAM is.

Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude

December 24, 2008
".....The conclusion [in the argument made by apologists for ISLAM] is that Islam is not anyone's enemy, but radical Islam is a threat to everyone. The argument does not include a single fact taken from Islamic doctrine. Everything is based upon what some Muslims have told them. In a court of law, such "proof" is called hearsay. In short, the argument can be summarized by: I know some good Muslims; hence, Islam is good.

.....we have to grasp the thick end of the wedge first. What is a "moderate Muslim?" What defines moderate? There are two references for moderation. The counter-terrorism friend's reference is "nice." A moderate is a nice person who won't harm a kafir (an unbeliever).
But we are talking about a Muslim, so the only valid reference for moderation is Islam, not "nice." It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is. So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then they are moderate. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life.

.....Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But according to the media and university intellectuals I am a hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good. Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?
I can defend my statements. I believe in critical thinking and facts. I want our government "experts" to give an argument to defend their doctrine of hearsay and opinion. What is the argument for not reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What is the argument for deliberate ignorance?

......The counter-terrorism expert [and the apologist for ISLAM] believes that they hold the high ground on knowledge and morals. Their position is the highest one because they do not indulge critical thinking. They accept hearsay as not just a better source of knowledge about Islam, but also the true source of knowledge. Hearsay is the only moral position. Those who argue from facts from the Islamic doctrine and history are bad people who contradict "nice" people. Facts must submit to feelings in political correctness."
Bill Warner
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/refuting-counter-terrorism-dhimmitude/