Free Speech

[bomber]

The truth always looks different from different angles... when either party describes it although they seem to be talking about different things neither of them are lieing, or should be called a lier.

Anyway it's bed time for me

[SkyBoat]

Bomber-- Here is where you err. If you study Logic or Rhetorical Analysis, you know that the only relevant meaning is that which is perceived by the receiver. That is why words have consequences. I analysed your posts and perceived, based on your words and ideas, what you meant. If you meant something else, then it was your responsibility to write and present your ideas so that my perception would be different. And, it is also not necessary for you to have said the exact words. That is an error in thinking. The ideas you presented conveyed what I wrote in my original post. They were quite clear. At this point, it is a waste of time to go back and pull those out because you know to which statements I am referring, as does everyone else who has been following this thread.

Why aren't you flying and enjoying yourself?

[KL-666]

Ow, now we acknowledge the existence of alternative truths, Bomber?

No matter what your alternative truth is, cutting and pasting a shit load of quotes in a manner that always proves you right, does not bring you any truth, neither does it bring you any alternative truth.

Vincent

[Lydiot]

I agree with you that there are differences between saying, "you're like [have qualities of] Adolf Hitler," and, "you are Adolf HItler," and, "Nobody here is Adolf Hitler but there are parallels to those political dynamics." (And, BTW, I have used the first of those comparisons before and now wish I hadn't.)

I'm slightly confused, if I understand what you wrote it sounds like you're trying to show the situation is fascism without saying, "there is a person here who is like Hitler." I think people reading your sig will automatically ask, "Who is he referring to?" Not, "what is the situation?" ETA: There isn't enough information unless one digs into it, to derive that from your signature alone. And sigs should (IMVVHO) stand on their own.

I actually think that is a very fair point you're making. Perhaps it was careless of me to assume that the community is such that only the relevant people would actually see and "get" the message, one way or another.

On the other hand perhaps Bomber has a point in that most users would not have seen the sig and then related that to any particular individuals or policies.

Aside from that, my point was simply that anytime anyone brings up a reference to Nazi Germany, that person implicates the systematic murder by execution of millions of people. The Shoah and Naziism are, to me now as a crusty old fart, inextricably linked, and one cannot reference one without the other being at the forefront of my thought. It's a more sensitive position than others (maybe most) people have - and perhaps my fault lies in that on this matter I refuse to see distinctions (thanks E.L. James for completely ruining the phrase I would have used there. ) Not everyone is like that, I know, but in this there's black and white - don't make a holocaust reference without my thinking about the honored dead.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. That time and place involved so much more than the holocaust, and so limiting any comparison to that or automatically including it is erroneous in my opinion. If that is where you mind goes and you therefore question the validity of the comparison then I would argue it'd be better to just ask in what sense the comparison is valid.

[Lydiot]

@The Lydiot:

Do you really want to have that conversation?

[Lydiot]

I did not call you Der Fuhrer. Learn how to read.

Why that's funny, earlier you told me that your signature attributes to me.

The signature absolutely expresses principles opposite to free speech, and by inference attributes it to JWocky and you people!

I was already wondering when you would come up with this twist.

It should probably have said "them" rather than "it". I still thought it was absolutely clear that I was attributing principles opposite to free speech to "Jwocky and you people". Like I said, I thought that was clear.

[Lydiot]

Bomber-- Here is where you err. If you study Logic or Rhetorical Analysis, you know that the only relevant meaning is that which is perceived by the receiver. That is why words have consequences. I analysed your posts and perceived, based on your words and ideas, what you meant. If you meant something else, then it was your responsibility to write and present your ideas so that my perception would be different.

Jesus!....

Didn't you just tell me in a PM to interpret what other people say more positively?

Didn't the PM to me propose pretty much exactly the opposite of what you're saying above?

So when Bomber writes something and "you" guys interpret that in a way he thinks he didn't mean, you tell him that it's his responsibility to write so that you 'get it', but when I take what JWocky writes at face value the problem is apparently that I'm being too negative!?

Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary....

---------------

Now, the other problem you have to face is whether or not you actually want to discuss something. Vincent started this thread and it lives on a forum and thus you can expect people to discuss what he says. If it was only meant to inform people then as a moderator he should have created the thread, made it a sticky, and locked it. But he did not. But let's look at what he did do; he began by pointing a finger in my direction, with the clear intent of denigrating me, which I can take obviously, but he didn't expect that someone else would stick up for the same principles I did. And as a result he just resorted to name-calling and accusing Bomber of being a troll, rather than have a discussion. And I'm sure that Bomber and I could have very different opinions about things so this isn't some sort of collusion.

So again, read the first post. It clearly implies that MY problem is that I don't want a discussion, when it's clearly the exact opposite. Instead, it is Vincent who stops talking rationally about this.

Just look at where Bomber is accused of having wrongly quoted someone. Vincent accused him of doing that, and Bomber was completely reasonable: He asked for the specifics - which post was it, and what was it in that post that was wrong? He offered to change the post to make it accurate. Vincent refused. Here was a great example where just clarifying where the "lie" supposedly was could have solved the issue of confrontation, and he wouldn't accept doing so! I'm not surprised though, earlier there was the "gay" remark that was thrown out, and again there was no desire at all to clarify what was meant.

It's clear; one rule for some people, another rule for others. You tell me that the PM you sent me isn't debatable, yet here Vincent is starting a thread about it. And then when he doesn't get the response he wants he stops debating and just calls people "trolls".

-------------

And lastly, if I really wanted to destroy this community, and I really don't, don't I strike you as the kind of person that would spend way more time on it and do it much better? Would a troll who wants to destroy this community limit himself to one section which consists only of off-topic banter?

[KL-666]

In this thread Lydiot and Bomber have demonstrated their abuse of freedom of speech by being very careless with the truth quite enough now. People have patiently shown time after time where they go astray, like when they conveniently "forget" crucial quotes in their creative cutting and pasting. But this all goes nowhere, because they keep popping out new twists and recycle old twists that have already been rebutted 10 pages ago. Normal people have better things to do, like school, day jobs, etc...

Anyone still interested can just read this thread from a to z. I only have to give you Lydiots signature, and everyone is free to judge who attacks who here, and how true the signature is given that all their carelessness with the truth and the signature itself are still on this forum.

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

Kind regards, Vincent

[SkyBoat]

Lydiot-- Describing what bomber has clearly stated over a number of posts as a way to refute his claim that his freedom of speech is being constantly threatened is not hypocrisy. Furthermore, the issue regarding what I said to bomber and the content of the PM you received are not even close to being the same. I will not discuss that further.

However, there is a point in which what I said to bomber can be said to you. Speaking for myself, I think far too much of what you post is a big waste of our time and does not merit the level of response that you receive. Why are you involved with FlightGear to begin with? Why aren't you spending the majority of your time flying rather than provoking fights or jumping into the middle of posts and arguing ad nauseum over minutia? What you write has devolved to the level of nuisance, IMHO, your having long ago having exhausted contributing anything that is genuinely helpful and relevant to either this forum or FlightGear in general.

So, go out there and fly.

[bomber]

As you're clearly of a mind to read between the lines rather than what I've actually wrote I've updated my signature....

Maybe it'll sink in after a while.