to DaNatural and the Pinkos

[Fantomas]

DaNatural suggested that I be banned from this site.
Now, this is typically Marxist. This is what Commies do---"Censorship". I like the way the true colors of you inept-underachieving Marxists are coming out.
Death to Communism!!!
Viva Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Chief Rebel Angel]

lol c'mon now, take it easy... some of us actually enjoy u being here...

[RedCeltic]

It was just one person who said that... and I already said we shoulcn't bann you but put a big ol' sign on you saying clown, or moron. or how about "Just here for amusement"?


However, since you came on this bb you've done nothing but unleash personal attacks! I think you''ve gone too far and was hoping you would just stop and go away, or at least stop with the insults. So unfortunalty since you can't be cival, and don't go away on your own... I don't see any other way...



(Edited by RedCeltic at 8:49 am on Oct. 26, 2001)

[Just Red]

Yo, Fantomus (or something)

Why don't you get you're ass of this site right now?

I mean, what the hell are you doing here? You're making sexist, not-funny right-wing "jokes" about everything.

A sugestion: drop the personal attack or fuck off!!

And about the censorship, we ain't baaning you because we don't like youre view of things (if you have any) but because youre posts are good for nothing, THEY SUCK!, AND YOU TOO!!

So start discussing seriously, or you'll be kiccked off the site! Go annoying someone else!

[Nickademus]

fantamos .. you have made many personal attacks on me and yet (believe it or not) i was one of the first people that malte (the administrator) asked if he should ban you.

I said NO|!!!!!

stop being an ass though. i will never support banning you because i believe in free speach. yet as i said before this is a forum for intelligent conversation. we don't appreciated people who can't contribute to that intelligent conversation. well probably just pressure you to go away or sooner or later just start ignoring you.

and what's wrong . . .you're no longer responding to posts about you . . . . .afraid of being shown your wrong?

[madmax]

"i will never support banning you because i believe in free speach."

I agree.

"yet as i said before this is a forum for intelligent conversation."

Occasionally.

"and what's wrong . . .you're no longer responding to posts about you . . . . .afraid of being shown your wrong?"

Nanny nanny boo boo.



(Edited by madmax at 6:33 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)

[gooddoctor]

i think the war propaganda we all have to bear at the moment (although some of the more liberal publications are reviewing their positions) is adequate proof that censorship isn't just limited to quasi-marxist states. it's alive and well in western democracy (god, that phrase sounds so apologetic, like they can't say real democracy). aren't all of us as marxists fighting this? and i can assure you, fantasmo, that it is not your ideas that we are censoring - there are others who agree with you here. you are just insulting and unworthy to exist on a civilised discussion board.
and underacheiver? that's just prejudiced. i am studying at glasgow university, one of the best institutions in the world i'll have you know. i am proud of my personal acheivements because i work hard, and am eager to help empower other people who didn't have the same opportunities that i did. i'm not interested in my own progression through society, but the general progression of society. what do you have to offer?
oh, and if killing communists isn't the most extreme form of censorship then what is? hypocrite...

DEATH TO FASCISTS!!!
LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!!!

[AgustoSandino]

That the majority of networks choose to support the US in its struggle to defend itself and the world from terrorism is not censorship. They are not held to any legal repercussions should they decide to question american activities. Perhaps you don't understand that the individuals who report the news might actually support the war. Furthermore think what would happen if a news outlet criticized the war, lets say if NBC decided to stop supporting the war in america. The public would be upset, they would stop watching NBC, that would be bad for NBC. You seem to think that the media sets the mood for the public, but can it be that the public sets the mood for the media as well, its a two way street. Everyone here has heard of public opinion polls, how else do you think the networks know what to put out. The public supports the war, the media supports it because the individuals in the networks actually do and because it follows the public. In the current situation there is no institutionalized censorship, only by the taliban, the US govt. did suggest that the bin laden tapes be edited, because of actual security concerns.

I would say the most extreme forms of censorship were on display in three states: nazi germany, do we need to elaborate. USSR, can we pronounce gulag and purge. PR China, cultural revolution, does that mean killing lots of people.

[gooddoctor]

agusto, think about it. who owns the media? in my country, the uk, 30% of multimedia is owned by rupert murdoch. he is a huge america fan and is now even a citizen. he loves america because they won't stop him doing what he wants, accumulating obscene amounts of wealth and the majority of people there love him too. by "him" i mean the sensationalist and demagoguery with which his media reports the news. you can equate his audience with the sort of people who watch jerry springer or rambo. they need quick thrills like a movie. they aren't interested in reality. they want to know that they are the good guys and that the world is nice and fluffy which even you must admit is just not true. they don't want to hear about the civilian death toll in afghanistan, about how the anti-war sentiment is rapidly becoming the norm, how people are protesting on the streets in every country on this earth everyday, how blair and bush have got it wrong and their war against terrorism is going nowhere fast. sometimes people just have to be told bad news in their best interests.
however, it is murdoch's job to support whoever is in power, even if they are wrong, because he makes faustian deals with them in return for favours. it is against his personal interests to criticise the government for right or wrong. murdoch personally has a huge impact on the media here because he employs the people that run his many newspapers, tv stations and others. they all think like him or else he wouldn't employ them. they then employ the people who "create the news". they all think like him too. they will be the last to withdraw their support for the war, which is directly linked to murdoch's unwavering support of the government. all mass media is run this way.
some of the more independant publications in this country are beginning to report the war in a balanced way though and it's having a massive effect on public opinion. and that's the main point. it is not the public who decides what is printed or aired, it is media which creates public opinion. for example the last push that really sent blair into power was when the sun, our biggest, dullest and most right-wing tabloid, came out and said they weren't supporting the tories anymore but him. they put new labour in power effectively, i remember the day well. as proof that the anti-war campaign is succeeding a survey carried out by our uni newspaper has shown that well over 50% of students are against military action. this is just the most educated and politically aware section of society, so what happens when the unwashed masses catch on?
slowly but surely, the media is realising that it can't support this ridiculous war anymore because there are too many contradictions. even the mirror, an extreme right tabloid in the same vein as the sun, is openly attacking the war more than anyone and is receiving huge support and praise from the public. so much so in fact that they printed a list of all the anti-war headlines they've run so far. they are setting the trend and people are slowly coming to their senses just like during vietnam, but faster because this is the information age.
you might not call this state censorship (although there was a scandal when a government spokeswoman here circulated a memo advising mps that s11 was a good day to bury bad news and was exposed - she has not been sacked), but the government has certainly gone to the media magnates and told them what they want. don't fool yourself and pretend they haven't because you already said they won't run interviews with bin laden so what else have they asked for behind closed doors. people like murdoch are more interested in what the government can do for them rather than the truth.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 9:48 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)