did I mention I love censorship?

[Chris Hughes]

             We have 23 areas of discussion.  I don't understand why anybody would relinquish their opportunity to have a civil chat about what we think.  This entire fiasco started with a thread regarding how much money was sent on the parties in DC.  I think that is a relevant discussion due to its impact in the general economy.
               How many of us are sidelined in the for profit sector of Festool obsession?  We can't talk about that "its political".  You need to add sports to the banned list if you are going to make a list.  I live in Michigan and thus we have Lions.  I get very upset when football comes up.
                                                                     C Hughes

 

[Forrest Anderson]

With great hesitation, I'm prepared to change rule #5 to specifically disallow political and religious discussions.

For ease of reference, Rule 5 (dated 21 Jan 2007) currently says:

Keeping in mind the general points mentioned above, here are some specifics...
5. Avoid discussions about race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and politics.  There are times when these topics can lead to enjoyable discussions, but please tread lightly here!  Don't say anything about someone else that you would not like someone to say about you!

And the supplemental set of rules, dated 18 Jun 2008, includes the following categories:

Following the wisdom of the vast majority of our members, these kinds of posts will now be deleted without comment:

Posts designed to raise personal gripes between two or more members
Posts that contain the text of PMs or e-mails exchanged between two or more members without the consent of all involved
Posts meant purely to spread lies or rumors about FOG members or the FOG itself
Posts with racial undertones or overtones
Posts that generate more than 20 complaints from FOG members

How about creating a poll to see whether the majority of members want an outright ban on political and religious discussions?

Forrest

 

[Matthew Schenker]

How about creating a poll to see what the majority of members want?

I'd be fine with that, although I suspect the poll choices would themselves be a problem.

We have 23 areas of discussion.  I don't understand why anybody would relinquish their opportunity to have a civil chat about what we think.

I don't want to speak for the many people who have commented on this offline and online, but I don't think anyone wants to relinquish opportunities.  It's more that many people worry about political (or sexual or racial) discussions derailing the main point of this forum.

This entire fiasco started with a thread regarding how much money was sent on the parties in DC.  I think that is a relevant discussion due to its impact in the general economy.

One could offer an interpretation that basically any subject is relevant to woodworking.  I could imagine someone finding a way to say that pornography is relevant, for example (carpenters may be hired to create sets).  But are we going to allow discussions of pornography?

How many of us are sidelined in the for profit sector of Festool obsession?  We can't talk about that "its political".  You need to add sports to the banned list if you are going to make a list.  I live in Michigan and thus we have Lions.  I get very upset when football comes up.

This is simply not true.  Discussing business issues and economic challenges is a perfectly fine subject, and has been discussed many times -- even encouraged.  I would not call that political at all, and it does not fit the description of the issues we are discussing here.  Likewise sports: it has come up many times, and is a fun topic.  Sports is recreation, and it is almost always possible to have a discussion in which people disagree and yet laugh about it.  Politics online, on the other hand, almost always ends up in arguments and damage to the community.

I like the challenge of discussing these things, so I thank you for bringing it up in a professional manner.  I much prefer to have this kind of discussion publicly than offline.  We not only better understand why things happen the way they do in the forum, but perhaps I won't have to repeat the same points lots of times in several individual messages!

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Daviddubya]

For ease of reference, Rule 5 (dated 21 Jan 2007) currently says:

Keeping in mind the general points mentioned above, here are some specifics...
5. Avoid discussions about race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and politics.  There are times when these topics can lead to enjoyable discussions, but please tread lightly here!  Don't say anything about someone else that you would not like someone to say about you!

And the supplemental set of rules, dated 18 Jun 2008, includes the following categories:

Following the wisdom of the vast majority of our members, these kinds of posts will now be deleted without comment:

Posts designed to raise personal gripes between two or more members
Posts that contain the text of PMs or e-mails exchanged between two or more members without the consent of all involved
Posts meant purely to spread lies or rumors about FOG members or the FOG itself
Posts with racial undertones or overtones
Posts that generate more than 20 complaints from FOG members

Thanks for the references Forrest.  Based on EXISTING rules, dating back to June 18, 2008, the "inauguration" thread that spawned this discussion should have been "deleted without comment" because it clearly fit into the category of "Posts that generate more than 20 complaints from FOG members".  As I recall from another post, that thread generated more than 40 complaints.  Some folks might feel the "inauguration" thread also contained "Posts with racial undertones or overtones".

There are a few simple rules that would work pretty well, if we would just follow them.

 

[Dave Ronyak]

I'd like to offer a suggestion.  Implement this rule, which is one part of the Terms of Service at another, very popular woodworking forum, Sawmill Creek:

"All members shall abstain from engaging in religious or political debate."

Even in the Off Topic area, threads or posts that contain religious or political debate are simply not allowed, and are deleted by the moderators.

I have no problem if Matthew and any other moderators of FOG want to limit discussion because there are other forums available to discuss whatever anyone is interested in.  But... .

I have a question for Daviddubya and all others: Is discussion of sales taxes on internet sales versus local brick and mortar stores a political discussion or not?  A discussion of censorship is itself also a political discussion as well as is a discussion regarding the purpose and administration of FOG.  Have any of you read the First Amendment to the US Constitution recently?  Censorship by government was a top concern of the politicians who wrote our Constitution.  Politics today in USA affects everything, and everything involves politics at some level. 

Dave R.

 

[Daviddubya]

I have no problem if Matthew and any other moderators of FOG want to limit discussion because there are other forums available to discuss whatever anyone is interested in.  But... .

Dave - I totally agree, and think that discussions that violate the FOG rules should be deleted and taken to those other forums if people want to continue the discussion.  BTW, as far as I know, Matthew is the sole moderator of FOG.

I have a question for Daviddubya and all others: Is discussion of sales taxes on internet sales versus local brick and mortar stores a political discussion or not?  A discussion of censorship is itself also a political discussion as well as is a discussion regarding the purpose and administration of FOG.  Have any of you read the First Amendment to the US Constitution recently?  Censorship by government was a top concern of the politicians who wrote our Constitution.   Politics today in USA affects everything, and everything involves politics at some level. 

Dave R.

Dave - I think it is clear that the moderator has the responsibility for answering your question.  If any individual member thinks a post (or thread) is in violation of the rules, we have the option of reporting that to the moderator by clicking on the link in the lower right corner of every post or sending an email or PM.

 

[Bob Childress]

Have any of you read the First Amendment to the US Constitution recently?  Censorship by government was a top concern of the politicians who wrote our Constitution.   Politics today in USA affects everything, and everything involves politics at some level. 

Dave R.

Leaving aside the condescending tone of that comment, the answer is yes, I have. Many times. It specifically says Congress shall make no law. It means that if I own a business and you work for me and publicly bad mouth it, you have the right to say it. But it does not mean I must let you get away with it. I will fire you just the same and you will have no recourse to the Constitution.

This is a private forum with a private owner. It is not the Press, or radio or TV.

 

[Dave Ronyak]

Bob, 

I'm sorry if you read my comment as condescending, it was not meant to be.  I was trying to provoke others to think more deeply about the issue, and in their responses on FOG.  I earlier wrote directly to Matthew and others that I recommended the entire thread about the cost of the inauguration had run its course and could/should now be deleted so we would again focus on matters much more closely and directly related to Festool products and using them.

I used to work for a Richard Childress, who was an ex-marine and IP attorney.  Any kin to you?

Dave R.

 

[Daviddubya]

...I earlier wrote directly to Matthew and others that I recommended the entire thread about the cost of the inauguration had run its course and could/should now be deleted so we would again focus on matters much more closely and directly related to Festool products and using them....

And hopefully you would agree that THIS thread has also run its course?

 

[Dave Ronyak]

Yes.

Dave R.

 

[Bob Childress]

I used to work for a Richard Childress, who was an ex-marine and IP attorney.  Any kin to you?

Dave R.

I don't know. Does he have any money?  ;D ;D ;D

 

[Dave Ronyak]

Probably, but he holds it pretty tightly. ;D

Dave R.

 

[Notorious T.O.D.]

The Richard Childress in my hood has a winery and a few of them NASCARS...

OH, there I go bringing up sports and politics again....

Notorious...

 

[sw1211]

The Richard Childress in my hood has a winery and a few of them NASCARS...

OH, there I go bringing up sports and politics again....

Notorious...

as long as you don't bring up religion we should be ok.  Speaking of sports, does anyone else think 7 points is too much for the Cards?  Tempted to take the points, I think it'll be a closer game than 7.  They've been blown out a few games this year but seem to have figured out something defensively in the playoffs.