Our open forum.......

[Leon]

Sometimes good people get caught in our open forum policy. As most know, just about anything can be said if you put your name by it. Not everyone likes this policy.
Everyone should know that Each member is legally liable for what they say too. You can be taken to court if you libel someone on this board. Those things said I thought I would get some feedback on an exchange below. There really isn't anything I can do (if I stick to the policy) about these things. Members can always rebut what is said here, ask members to edit their comments or take legal action. They can come to me for help but that just won't happen when it concerns censoring or deleting etc.....Here is an exchange I had last night..... The first response (right below here) is the first message I got...then below that is my response....etc....( I x'd out a few things on purpose as I don't want to out this person)



1. First email
Hello Leon,
I am writing you in regards to the following post which I provided the link
for below.

http://net54baseball.com/showpostXXXXXXXXXX

I am very shocked and surprised that you would allow members to make such
posts without any proof. What kind of website are you exactly running over
here? I know you wouldn't appreciate me posting on the CU board that Leon
Luckey shills auctions and other off the wall stuff like that. No doubt you
would be on the phone with Joe Orlando. I just ask for the same courtesy.

I have spoken to many friends of mine in the hobby and they are frankly
disappointed you have allowed this guy to push things this far. As much as
it is a pain for me to have my eBay account dragged into the mud for the
less educated collectors, it is also not a good reflection on you.

I appreciate your time.

Take care,



2. My response-

Hi XXXX
You have a misunderstanding of what Net54baseball is about, concerning this
issue. I don't tell people what to say or not to say. It is an open forum as
long as someone puts their name next to their post. It's that simple. If you
would like to rebut his statement, it is within your right. Let me know if I
can be of any help.
Regards
leon



3. His response-


Hello Leon,

You can be of some help, please remove me from your website as well as your emails as
I do not want to be associated with a website that allows its members to say whatever
pops into their heads. An open forum is one thing, but to libel someone is something
totally different. I shouldn't have to go after someone in court because you feel like having
an "open" forum. I do not wish to push this issue, but it is not ethical to me. Maybe because
I'm a XXX I believe that ethics are important.

Just know that reputation is all one has and your reputation has been hurt more than mine
ever will.

Take care,



4. My response-

Generally speaking I don't remove things from the website. Sorry for any issues you have but I just don't tell people what to say or not to say.
Regards
leon



He then asked to delete his account and I abided by his wish....(he only had a few posts)

I just don't see changing our policy. There are a few folks that don't like it but I am a firm believer in an open forum. Thoughts?

[calvindog]

Doug Allen?

[CharleyBrown]

Leon,

I agree with your policy of an open forum. To be honest, that poster would have been far better off addressing his/her concerns on the board. His/her reluctance to do so makes them seem as if they know they don't have a leg to stand on, and that they may, in fact, be guilty of the accusations.

I like the fact that you don't delete threads - it requires people to think about what they post before doing so, as they know their name will be attached to it.

His statement that your reputation will be more hurt than his is ridiculous. In fact, I think it speaks volumes of your character to stand by your beliefs and honesty as an individual.

[teetwoohsix]

I agree with your response Leon, for all of the reasons stated.

I don't know who the person was, but he/she did have the freedom to speak their mind regarding whatever thread it was on.... that is the beauty of an open forum. Instead, they chose to email you to complain about the poster/thread.

I've heard of another forum that makes threads go "poof" :D and I can say that I would never want to be a part of a forum that controls free speech like some North Korean dictatorship. Long live the first amendment in the Bill of Rights!!! :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[nolemmings]

I would have guessed it was Lichtman but I see where he's posted since.

[Leon]

Doug Allen?

LOL....Doug and I have had that conversation before....as well as a few other folks (including advertisers). It wasn't Doug.

[Sean]

Leon,I agree that this is the best way to run this forum. You are not responsible (legally or ethically) for what members say. If this person is so injured by what someone said about him then he should respond to that board member, not to you. He sounds pretty thin-skinned to begin with.
In any case,we're all adults here, and we should be able to defend ourselves and our opinions without crying to you every time someone says something about us that we don't like. :rolleyes:
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go bid in the REA.

[GoldenAge50s]

I agree w/ those who have posted so far and your response to the offended party.

If he feels libeled all he has to do is deal w/ the poster, not the venue.

Sounds to me as if he has no intention of addressing the issue he is complaining to you about--says volumes about the accusation & his failure to defend himself!

[cyseymour]

The forum should generally be open, but things like slander and libel shouldn't be accepted. There needs to be limits in order to protect people's reputations for the good of the hobby. Now, if people can provide evidence for their accusations, it is one thing... but other times things have gone too far.

Sometimes the board can become too ugly and there needs to be better controls in place... "freedom of speech" only goes so far - like in our country, there needs to be limits. The idea that freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything at any time is an oversimplification of an ideal.

So basically I feel that the complaint is legitimate and what is tolerated/accepted on the board ought to be examined and reconsidered... not in the spirit of quashing people's ability to post, but in the spirit of allowing people to protect themselves and not get unjustly slammed by others on a public forum.

[mark evans]

I think you're right, Leon, and that your policy is one of the virtues of the Board.

I could see drawing an exception maybe where it is clear that one member is engaged in a personal vendetta and makes constant attacks against another with no apparent factual basis. But, I don't know that this has happened and my comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

Thanks again for all the effort you (and the other moderators) put into this Board.

Mark

[pariah1107]

delete (repeat)

[Leon]

delete (repeat)

Hi Ty
While I/we don't delete threads we do delete them for operational reasons, especially duplicate posts. That is what Happened here....I deleted your other identical one then you deleted the other one. My apologies.

[4815162342]

I'll pile on. Great job Leon, as always. You're doing the right thing, and we all commend you for it.

[AMBST95]

I like the way you handled this. I do think that if someone is proven to libel another that they should be removed from the forum. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to be held responsible for how we exercise this right.

[bigtrain]

I, too, agree with the concept of an open forum bearing in mind that "freedom of speech" applies to a soapbox on the street corner, not necessarily to an online forum. The problem that arises is that libelous conduct can occur and that taking it up with the "slanderer" is not always feasible. There is no criminal libel in this country. Therefore, one would have to file a civil lawsuit, try to effect service on someone who could potentially be thousands of miles away and then try to collect a civil judgment against someone who maybe judgment-proof. In my mind, it is much easier to have a few reasonable rules of conduct.

[pariah1107]

Hi Ty
While I/we don't delete threads we do delete them for operational reasons, especially duplicate posts. That is what Happened here....I deleted your other identical one then you deleted the other one. My apologies.

Now that IS funny.

[teetwoohsix]

The forum should generally be open, but things like slander and libel shouldn't be accepted. There needs to be limits in order to protect people's reputations for the good of the hobby. Now, if people can provide evidence for their accusations, it is one thing... but other times things have gone too far.

Sometimes the board can become too ugly and there needs to be better controls in place... "freedom of speech" only goes so far - like in our country, there needs to be limits. The idea that freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything at any time is an oversimplification of an ideal.

So basically I feel that the complaint is legitimate and what is tolerated/accepted on the board ought to be examined and reconsidered... not in the spirit of quashing people's ability to post, but in the spirit of allowing people to protect themselves and not get unjustly slammed by others on a public forum.

I disagree with "freedom of speech only goes so far". Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not. I don't like everything I hear or read, but I always respect their right to say or write it. This is America. That's why it is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

I like the way you handled this. I do think that if someone is proven to libel another that they should be removed from the forum. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to be held responsible for how we exercise this right.

Why wouldn't the person libeled deal with the person libeling them? Is it a moderators responsibility? It's not that I/we can't do it but I am just not sure I should. If someone libeled me then I would deal with the person not the venue. The only thing I might ask the venue for is contact info of the person saying things about me. In that respect everyone should know that I WILL give out contact information in these type instances. Otherwise, contact info is private and protected.

And as for 1st Amendment rights, while I believe in them, this is a private forum and I don't think 1st Amendment rights apply here (though I am a strong believer in them and this forum is run, for the most part, that way)

[Lordstan]

Leon,
You are a 1000% correct in your position on this matter. I am very proud to be part of a forum where freedom of speech, as we as, being held responsible for the contents of what you say, is held in such high regard.
I wholeheartedly disagree with Cy's position. Once you decide to limit a freedom, it opens up a whole new can of worms. Who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable? Who gets to decide how much proof is sufficient to allow someone to post their story?
These type of issues become the heart of the matter once you start censoring free speech.
Don't get me wrong, people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences. Freedom, it all forms, must come with personal responsibility and accountability for the actions taken.. I think Leon's rule of having your name identified on all posts like this is the appropriate counterweight of responsibility. It allows for those who feel they have been falsely accused to either defend themselves just as publicly as they were accused or have written evidence of the slander, that can be used in a court of law, if necessary.
The person who wrote to Leon complained that he shouldn't have to take him to court to defend himself. Why not? That is how our system is set up. If you don't like it then lobby to change it . Just be very careful what you wish for, you might get it. If you do, then you can't complain when someone makes the rule that whatever you have to say is forbidden.
Keep up the good work, Leon.
Best,
M@rk V€l@rde

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[teetwoohsix]

I understand Leon, and appreciate that you do allow free speech here. I'm speaking more "in general".

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

I understand Leon, and appreciate that you do allow free speech here. I'm speaking more "in general".

Sincerely, Clayton

I know your thoughts fairly well Clayton. We agree on stuff pretty close to 100% of the time. I appreciate everyone's kind words too. It never hurts to get opinions to make sure we are on the right track.....and as far as I can tell we are.

And one follow up.....I think "moderation" is the key to some situations. I think after someone makes their point...makes it again and again and again...then it's time to move on. Anymore could be construed as badgering and I don't think badgering is a good thing either. But overall, I strongly feel members should get to say what they want to.

[cyseymour]

I disagree with "freedom of speech only goes so far". Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not. I don't like everything I hear or read, but I always respect their right to say or write it. This is America. That's why it is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Sincerely, Clayton


Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[Hankphenom]

Leon,
You rule!

[Leon]

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions


I have found that well thought out rebuttals to someone's accusations are quite effective in swaying a conversation. It wouldn't take me thousands of dollars to dispute an accusation that I shill bid (which I have never done).

[Craig M]

Leon,

Being a moderator of a forum such as this one is basically a big baby-sitting job making sure everyone behaves themselves. It's easy to say that it looks like a big headache and frankly speaking, I don't know how you do it.

There is no possible way that you will be able to make all satisfied. All that one can ask for is that you do your best and keep some as semblance of order; which you are.

Keep in mind that just because a person wants to be deleted from the site doesn't mean that he/she still doesn't monitor the site. A person doesn't need to have a log-in name to view the forum so therefore that same person that was deleted or banned yesterday can view today and see what is being said about them.

A bigger issue on this forum than the unhappy previous member is a tremendous amount of DISHONESTY that get caught in their own untruthfulness. For these untruthful types what about making that GREEN online dot by their name, a RED one so that members know when they are buying cards from a dishonest red online dot (until that person cleans up his act) and turns back into green.

Thanks for all of your very hard work in making this forum the best.

Craig

[Leon]

Leon,

Being a moderator of a forum such as this one is basically a big baby-sitting job making sure everyone behaves themselves. It's easy to say that it looks like a big headache and frankly speaking, I don't know how you do it.

There is no possible way that you will be able to make all satisfied. All that one can ask for is that you do your best and keep some as semblance of order; which you are.

Keep in mind that just because a person wants to be deleted from the site doesn't mean that he/she still doesn't monitor the site. A person doesn't need to have a log-in name to view the forum so therefore that same person that was deleted or banned yesterday can view today and see what is being said about them.

A bigger issue on this forum than the unhappy previous member is a tremendous amount of DISHONESTY that get caught in their own untruthfulness. For these untruthful types what about making that GREEN online dot by their name, a RED one so that members know when they are buying cards from a dishonest red online dot (until that person cleans up his act) and turns back into green.

Thanks for all of your very hard work in making this forum the best.

Craig

Membership on this forum is not a right or guaranteed. I understand that folks that are banned or not logged in or not a member, can read it. I think it should be that way. I abhor not letting someone see something that is written about them, even if I don't like or disagree with that person. They should still be able to see what is said.

And as for me, or other moderators, arbitrating honest vs dishonest, I am not sure I want to be the deciding factor. Now that being said, if someone is dishonest on this forum there is a strong chance they will be banished anyway.

[Lordstan]

I expected the not yelling fire in a movie theater example to come up. The way rules work is that every action has a possible positive and negative consequence. Freedom demands we be held accountable, to these consequences, for our actions. Nobody said that slandering someone is legal.

If you yell fire in a theater, when there is none, you can be arrested and go to jail. If you slander someone, they can sue you and collect damages. The issue is whether we should be allowed to say what we want as long as we are accountable.

The point is that Leon has made the choice to allow people the freedom to post what they want. He is choosing not to be the one who decides what is slander and what isn't.

Lastly, Leon has the right to make whatever rules he wants in a private forum. Each of us has the right to decide if we want to participate.
Mark
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

I expected the not yelling fire in a movie theater example to come up. The way rules work is that every action has a possible positive and negative consequence. Freedom demands we be held accountable, to these consequences, for our actions. Nobody said that slandering someone is legal.

If you yell fire in a theater, when there is none, you can be arrested and go to jail. If you slander someone, they can sue you and collect damages. The issue is whether we should be allowed to say what we want as long as we are accountable.

The point is that Leon has made the choice to allow people the freedom to post what they want. He is choosing not to be the one who decides what is slander and what isn't.

Lastly, Leon has the right to make whatever rules he wants in a private forum. Each of us has the right to decide if we want to participate.
Mark
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

+1 Thank you.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

[cyseymour]

I have found that well thought out rebuttals to someone's accusations are quite effective in swaying a conversation. It wouldn't take me thousands of dollars to dispute an accusation that I shill bid (which I have never done).

Yes, but the damage is still done by the original accusation. That's why they call it slander, because even if you deny it, many will still believe the false rumors.

[teetwoohsix]

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

[cyseymour]

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

[Shoele$$]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

Pretty much in a nutshell...

This isn't the only open forum with the same policies on the web. It's been working roughly the same way since web based message boards first started in the mid 90's with the dawn of the Internet age. This really isn't anything new.

Leon you gave the best response possible, it was handled the right way.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Leon, you did the right thing.

[Wymers Auction]

I agree with Leon, but I think as we post on this board we should be careful of wild speculations that could hurt the livelihood of others. For example, I have seen many times where people come on here about Ebay sellers and feel like they have been shilled only to have it pointed out by others that it was not the case. Yes it was corrected, but that person's reputation has been questioned and for what reason? I like most of what I read, but I will admit there are a few people that do not believe there is a single honest AH or Ebay seller. I do not think we should change the way the board here is ran, but we do have a responsibility to be fair and honest in our statements as it deals with others.

[barrysloate]

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

[cyseymour]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

The concern stated in this thread is not a matter of the consequences for the slanderer, but for the consequences for the slandered.

[Rich Klein]

That one of the best things about this board is the right to defenc yourself by knowing exactly whom is saying certain things about you.

That is an American belief and as such, as long as the person puts their name behind their beliefs then I'm OK with what is being said.

In the case of someone such as Ken Thimmel (I never got my lithograph either for signing up); the evidence against him is overwhelming,,

Leon, it sounds like you are dead on and enjoy the weekend.

Rich

[Deertick]

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

"That's what she said!" - Michael Scott

[Texxxx]

There are many restrictions on the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. It does not allow anyone to say anything they want. Some examples that have been upheld in courts are:
1. Obscenity - Many restrictions here.
2. Speech in schools - Kids cant wear anything on there clothes, etc.
3. Political speech - Anonymous advertising, etc.
4. Commercial speech - Must be truthful, etc.

That being said I go along with Leon policy of having a open forum. I also believe that anyone that makes statements towards other people should have there name up front. Full name not names with symbols. People that continue to liable other people without proof should be dealt with in some manner.

[T205 GB]

Probstein123 is my guess. Based on the religion comment.

It has been mentioned many times here about bidding practices in his auctions. Now he is feeling the effects of it due to the exposure and is washing the blame off on the board. Jmo

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

cyseymour,

Sorry buddy, but I'm not mistaken. Actually Barry is correct. But, according to your logic, Rock Master Scott must have been arrested every time he performed this song live, right?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5B2Fzumzo8

I don't think I can go any further with you on this either. I hope people never buy into the theory that there are "limits to freedom of speech". You can be held accountable for what you say (example: seditious speech) but you are still free to say what you please in America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Probstein123 is my guess. Based on the religion comment.

It has been mentioned many times here about bidding practices in his auctions. Now he is feeling the effects of it due to the exposure and is washing the blame off on the board. Jmo

I wouldn't guess and I am not saying but It's not Probstein and not PWCC.....so just rule them out right now. Otherwise, it needs to stay private. The issue wasn't brought up to negatively affect someone as much as it was to make sure the policy is about as good as it can be. It is entirely, 100% impossible to please everyone. :) Party on and happy collecting....

[wolf441]

1. Leon, I believe that you've handled the situation correctly.
2. I never thought that a topic could actually make me look forward to a new Zone91 thread!
:D

[cyseymour]

sorry, double post - was working off my cellphone. Pls delete. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:
Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

[Section103]

Maybe its been said upthread, but the 1st Amendment does not apply to Net54 in any way, shape or form. It only guarantees that "Congress shall pass no law". Congress isnt about to pass a law regarding Net54. You are not guaranteed the right to say whatever you want here, at your workplace or anywhere outside of the public arena. This is a private enterprise.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:

Thanks for the compliment Todd.

The right to free speech and the right to bear arms, aside from being Constitutionally protected, are Natural rights. People have the right to say what they want, and the right to protect themselves, naturally.

Are you refering to the same Supreme Court who says it's ok for the government to make you purchase something by calling it a tax? Or, the same Supreme Court that says a "corporation" is a person?

I understand all of the legal jargon, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I believe we have natural rights.

Don't be so quick to assume I have limited knowledge when it comes to the first and second amendment. I may just have a different outlook on life than you do. My mind is free.

Sincerely, Clayton

[ALR-bishop]

What are natural rights anyway ? Is there a list of them somewhere ? If I think my natural rights are violated what is my remedy ? When did natural rights begin ? Who determines the parameters of natural rights ? Is Leon the source of natural rights on this board ? :)

[teetwoohsix]

If you do not know what natural, God given rights are then you will never understand.

Sincerely, Clayton

[HRBAKER]

I am always amazed at the number of Constitutional scholars involved in the hobby. Interesting thread.

[teetwoohsix]

Here, maybe this is more fitting for some of you guys:

1. Obey
2. Do as we say, not as we do
3. Obey
4. Pay up
5. Obey
6. Do not resist
7. Obey
8. You can't say that
9. Obey
10. You can't do that
11. Obey

Do I fit in yet? :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[HRBAKER]

Here, maybe this is more fitting for some of you guys:

1. Obey
2. Do as we say, not as we do
3. Obey
4. Pay up
5. Obey
6. Do not resist
7. Obey
8. You can't say that
9. Obey
10. You can't do that
11. Obey

Do I fit in yet? :D

Sincerely, Clayton


Do you collect T206s?

[Texxxx]

I think this was all a ploy by Leon just to get a heated discussion going. He misses the fights from a couple of months ago.

[teetwoohsix]

Do you collect T206s?

Yes :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[Shoele$$]

Do you collect T206s?

LOL.....I mean that's the only thing that matters right? :p

[teetwoohsix]

I think this was all a ploy by Leon just to get a heated discussion going. He misses the fights from a couple of months ago.

I just wanted to make my one post, didn't think I'd end up on the defensive. But, I'm having fun- I'm glad Leon is cool enough to allow us to say what we want. Thanks Leon :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Maybe its been said upthread, but the 1st Amendment does not apply to Net54 in any way, shape or form. It only guarantees that "Congress shall pass no law". Congress isnt about to pass a law regarding Net54. You are not guaranteed the right to say whatever you want here, at your workplace or anywhere outside of the public arena. This is a private enterprise.

And if it's not a First Amendment issue, then it has to be a matter of what's best for the community. Having slanderous comments and false accusations swirling around the message board can hardly be considered to be good for the community.

[cubsfan-budman]

And if it's not a First Amendment issue, then it has to be a matter of what's best for the community. Having slanderous comments and false accusations swirling around the message board can hardly be considered to be good for the community.

I think that being able to speak freely is what's best for the community. Not some biased arbiter making choices about who can say what about whom.

I absolutely avoid the CU boards because of the censorship I've seen over there. I don't care to have that type of environment over here.

[cyseymour]

I think that being able to speak freely is what's best for the community. Not some biased arbiter making choices about who can say what about whom.

I absolutely avoid the CU boards because of the censorship I've seen over there. I don't care to have that type of environment over here.

No one would want to see it become like the CU boards, CU obviously has their own agenda. But knocking out the most egregious slander is still a reasonable thing to do, especially if it is causing court cases or unjust harm to people's reputations. Everyone will still feel free to post, they just won't be able to write false accusations about people. That isn't trampling on anyone's rights - in fact, it's the rights of the people who are being slandered that are being trampled upon.

[cubsfan-budman]

Too subjective. Leave it as it is.

Who defines "most egregious"?



No one would want to see it become like the CU boards, CU obviously has their own agenda. But knocking out the most egregious slander is still a reasonable thing to do, especially if it is causing court cases or unjust harm to people's reputations. Everyone will still feel free to post, they just won't be able to write false accusations about people. That isn't trampling on anyone's rights - in fact, it's the rights of the people who are being slandered that are being trampled upon.

[ALR-bishop]

How does one know when normal everyday slander becomes egregious ? Who determines when something is slander in the first place ( actually in this case libel). Is truth a defense ? Who determines the truth. Leon---you sure have your work cut out for you :)

[frankbmd]

I just wanted to make my one post, didn't think I'd end up on the defensive. But, I'm having fun- I'm glad Leon is cool enough to allow us to say what we want. Thanks Leon :D

Sincerely, Clayton


Clayton,

Don't worry, I've got your back. We can hide out at Little Bohemia, about 25 miles north of here. It worked for Dillinger. You'll be safe there and I'll buy the first round (see below). Let me know your arrival time and I'll pick you up at the curb in the get away car (see below).

Frank

[cyseymour]

Too subjective. Leave it as it is.

Who defines "most egregious"?

Well, there's moderators for a reason. Sort of like with Adrian's posts... why a fifteen post limit? Why not ten, or twenty? Or forty? Who can define it? Ultimately, you go with the best judgments of the moderators... that is their job and role within the community. Certainly, deleting scandalous or libelous posts would fall within that role.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton,

Don't worry, I've got your back. We can hide out at Little Bohemia, about 25 miles north of here. It worked for Dillinger. You'll be safe there and I'll buy the first round (see below). Let me know your arrival time and I'll pick you up at the curb in the get away car (see below).

Frank

:D Good one- thanks Frank. Sounds like a plan ;)

Sincerely, Clayton

[cubsfan-budman]

Well, there's moderators for a reason. Sort of like with Adrian's posts... why a fifteen post limit? Why not ten, or twenty? Or forty? Who can define it? Ultimately, you go with the best judgments of the moderators... that is their job and role within the community. Certainly, deleting scandalous or libelous posts would fall within that role.

I think the limit on Adrian was done playfully more than anything else. I think that Adrian wasn't entirely familiar with general forum etiquette and the post limit helped reinforce that.

I do go with the best judgement of the moderators...he's chosen to have the forum be open and uncensored when it comes to topics and opinions.

[cyseymour]

I think the limit on Adrian was done playfully more than anything else. I think that Adrian wasn't entirely familiar with general forum etiquette and the post limit helped reinforce that.

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.

I do go with the best judgement of the moderators...he's chosen to have the forum be open and uncensored when it comes to topics and opinions.

He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

[cardinalcollector]

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.



He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

He did ask for opinions, most folks agreed with him. How can you blatantly state he isn't doing the right thing as a fact. Isn't that your opinion??

[ALR-bishop]

Darn. I totaly missed that this was a simple matter of fact. That makes it much more clear cut for everyone

[teetwoohsix]

How is Leon not doing the right thing?

His rules are clear, and people are accountable for what they say. What more do you want him to do?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Tobacco&Gum]

Fire!

[RCMcKenzie]

Fire!

Fire on the mountain.

[cubsfan-budman]

I think you've been reading the wrong thread.

Anyhow, to each their own. Have a nice day.

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.



He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

[itjclarke]

I don't think I can go any further with you on this either. I hope people never buy into the theory that there are "limits to freedom of speech". You can be held accountable for what you say (example: seditious speech) but you are still free to say what you please in America.


I'm entering this conversation late, but the above statement is almost like saying "we all have the right to rob a liquer store, however may be held accountable for doing so". That said, though I don't know Clayton, I enjoy and agree with most all he posts and appreciate that most seem positive.

As mentioned by many others, there are limits to freedom of speech, as well as just about every other 200+ year old constitutional law.

I do think this topic is a pretty slippery slope. People in this business can truly be hurt by others' sometimes misguided words/attacks, but I don't think it is necessarily the duty of the forum moderator to enforce this. By law, I'd believe this task would fall into the hands of the one being slandered. And also believe anything said, which is untrue and could hurt peoples' reputations and businesses is probably not legal, free speech or not.

In an instance where gross/unawarented/known false attacks have been made, maybe there's an expception when the moderator steps in more heavily, but I think Leon does a great job holding this together. Thank you for all the good and presumedly sometimes hard work.

[cyseymour]

He did ask for opinions, most folks agreed with him. How can you blatantly state he isn't doing the right thing as a fact. Isn't that your opinion??

You're right, it is an opinion. I shouldn't have used the expression, "in fact" - would have been better off with "which" - but beyond the semantics, the larger meaning of the sentence remains.

[gnaz01]

Leon did the EXACT right thing here, no questions about it, IMHO.

[novakjr]

I think there's a large difference between flat-out accusing someone of doing something, and opening a discussion about things that they think may be questionable..

Aside from that though...

"Fair comment on a matter of public interest: arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected."

My belief is that comments made on THIS forum, about the hobby and/or anyone involved within the hobby(whether ultimately true or not, as long as they are speculatively legitimate), are made with the hobby's best interest in mind..

[Paul S]

This is the best egalitarian board of its’ kind around. Tolerates all to keep the common peace and Leon doesn’t even have to pull out a UZI(T) with a quarter next to it.

And, Cy, how do you know what “most” people think about Adrian? No poll, no empirical evidence. Maybe some largemouth bass. He threw a large stone into a sometimes stagnant pond and as far as I know every guppy responded and adapted.

[Runscott]

From the email exchange you posted, my guess is that he's guilty of whatever he's crying about.

Can he sue me for libel too?:eek:

[teetwoohsix]

I'm entering this conversation late, but the above statement is almost like saying "we all have the right to rob a liquer store, however may be held accountable for doing so". That said, though I don't know Clayton, I enjoy and agree with most all he posts and appreciate that most seem positive.

As mentioned by many others, there are limits to freedom of speech, as well as just about every other 200+ year old constitutional law.

I do think this topic is a pretty slippery slope. People in this business can truly be hurt by others' sometimes misguided words/attacks, but I don't think it is necessarily the duty of the forum moderator to enforce this. By law, I'd believe this task would fall into the hands of the one being slandered. And also believe anything said, which is untrue and could hurt peoples' reputations and businesses is probably not legal, free speech or not.

In an instance where gross/unawarented/known false attacks have been made, maybe there's an expception when the moderator steps in more heavily, but I think Leon does a great job holding this together. Thank you for all the good and presumedly sometimes hard work.

Thanks Ian.

It just boils down to common sense. The same common sense one would use to know that you shouldn't use profanity around children. "Freedom" and "limits" together sounds odd to me. Like "water" and "oil", they don't mix. You either have free speech or you don't. I prefer to think that we do. The same way you can never convince me that a corporation is a person- and I don't care who said that "it's the law". A person is "a person".

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Thanks Ian.

It just boils down to common sense. The same common sense one would use to know that you shouldn't use profanity around children. "Freedom" and "limits" together sounds odd to me. Like "water" and "oil", they don't mix. You either have free speech or you don't. I prefer to think that we do. The same way you can never convince me that a corporation is a person- and I don't care who said that "it's the law". A person is "a person".

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, I absolutely agree with your sentiments. That being said I guess it's not totally free speech on here. If someone goes completely ballistic or starts talking about someone's family, you can bet I or another mod will step in. But for the most part it is a very open forum and will stay that way.....along with the privacy policies. regards

[cyseymour]

And, Cy, how do you know what “most” people think about Adrian? No poll, no empirical evidence. Maybe some largemouth bass. He threw a large stone into a sometimes stagnant pond and as far as I know every guppy responded and adapted.

Paul, my friend, please don't misquote me. I never said "most" so I don't know where that came from. I wrote that "a lot" of people complained about Adrian, which was true.

[ALR-bishop]

I like Adrian. He grows on you after awhile

[Runscott]

Great thread-thanks, Cy and Clayton, for distracting me from my impending REA defeats, unless one of you is responsible for them.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

I totally agree.

I believe this forum has been a major asset to the hobby and has been highly instrumental in alerting people of many of the problems in the hobby.

If someone just cuts loose with malicious attacks, they will likely be sued. The fact that Leon requires full identity disclosure seems to minimize that problem. There are checks and balances in all of this.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, I absolutely agree with your sentiments. That being said I guess it's not totally free speech on here. If someone goes completely ballistic or starts talking about someone's family, you can bet I or another mod will step in. But for the most part it is a very open forum and will stay that way.....along with the privacy policies. regards

Completely understandable Leon.

I think you do a great job balancing this forum, and I think conversations like these are always interesting to me. And, to anyone I disagree with-I still respect your opinion. :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Great thread-thanks, Cy and Clayton, for distracting me from my impending REA defeats, unless one of you is responsible for them.

Haha- not me, I'm broke (otherwise I'd be at the California show right now). :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

And, to anyone I disagree with-I still respect your opinion. :)

Sincerely, Clayton

Same here. The one sentiment we seem to share is a lack of funds for this auction, lol.

[Runscott]

Same here. The one sentiment we seem to share is a lack of funds for this auction, lol.

You've both given us a good example of how to disagree but to do it in a civil manner.

[tiger8mush]

i agree w/how Leon handled it.

"FREEEEDOOOOOMMMM!!!"


http://www.actlikeaman.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mel-gibson-braveheart-photograph-c1010192232-241x300.jpg

[Paul S]

Paul, my friend, please don't misquote me. I never said "most" so I don't know where that came from. I wrote that "a lot" of people complained about Adrian, which was true.

Cy: Bro', My bad. I was just anxious about the Knicks chances tonight. And NOW, they are losing at halftime. I had a Gone Fishin' sign on my front door when I wrote that. No bad blood among fish here, just cartilage. Let's all keep the faith. :)

[Gary Dunaier]

Since free speech has been part of the discussion in this thread, are you guys aware that the Yankees have taken a simple rule prohibiting foul language and indecent clothing and made it into a free speech issue?

On the surface, I can't see anyone objecting to such a rule. I don't. However, I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. This appears on the Yankees website, in Yankee publications, and even on the back of some Yankee tickets:

"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

What's up with the Yankees' heavy-handed, holier-than-thou attitude toward their customers. Why can't they just say that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that? Why make it a free speech issue?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8199/8163180565_daf2a97447_c.jpg

[Runscott]

It's probably some legal thing that their lawyers suggested.

[glynparson]

Has limitations on it. To pretend otherwise is to be rather naive.

[itjclarke]

Thanks Ian.

It just boils down to common sense. The same common sense one would use to know that you shouldn't use profanity around children. "Freedom" and "limits" together sounds odd to me. Like "water" and "oil", they don't mix. You either have free speech or you don't. I prefer to think that we do. The same way you can never convince me that a corporation is a person- and I don't care who said that "it's the law". A person is "a person".

Sincerely, Clayton

By "limits", I only meant that a person can break the law by simply saying the wrong thing, in the wrong place. Of course you're "free" to say whatever you want, and will sometimes suffer the consequences for doing so.. but again, you are free to commit any crime you want and similarly face the consequences. This measure of "freedom" and the subsequent consequences is no different in any country or walk of life.

What I think differentiates us (the American ideals people think of when "freedom of speech" is mentioned) is the fact that we allow much more (almost anything) to be said, drawing the lines of legal speech much more loosly/openly than a more oppressive regime might. We can march (ideally after securing a license first), we can protest, we can write nasty letters to newspaper editors about our mayor/governor/congressman/president, etc. There was no room for similar politicized speech under Stalin or Mao... and even in modern "1st world" R****a (I'll let you fill in the gaps) several reporters/lawyers have been assasinated apparently for criticism of those in power. Clearly in those instances, freedoms are far more limited than we experience, and the line of what can be said is much more strict.

Separately though, I totally agree in that I am also a big "common sense" guy, and do get tired of a total reliance on written law to guide and/or judge one's actions. Many things said or done totally defy common sense and are wrong, legal or not... but I married a lawyer so there you have it :p

[WhenItWasAHobby]

This thread has really gotten sidetracked. Yes, there are definitely legal limitations of what can be communicated, mainly for public safety issues and that rarely applies to what goes on here. However I do recall recently reading someone making a physical threat on another person on this forum and the laws may vary from state to state, but in Texas that would very likely be regarded as assault. See post #209

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162027&page=21

See Sec. 22.01.(2)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

[novakjr]

Since free speech has been part of the discussion in this thread, are you guys aware that the Yankees have taken a simple rule prohibiting foul language and indecent clothing and made it into a free speech issue?

On the surface, I can't see anyone objecting to such a rule. I don't. However, I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. This appears on the Yankees website, in Yankee publications, and even on the back of some Yankee tickets:

"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

What's up with the Yankees' heavy-handed, holier-than-thou attitude toward their customers. Why can't they just say that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that? Why make it a free speech issue?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8199/8163180565_daf2a97447_c.jpg

It's basically a contract. If you buy this ticket, and you enter the stadium, you are entered into it and waive your right to free speech. It's just the Yankees covering their ass in case someone tries to sue based on free speech.

[MattyC]

I don't see it as the Yankees having an attitude, but more as a CYA move advised by their lawyers; people know the Yankees have money and in this litigious age they are a potential target. Strikes me as legal protection against a lawsuit.

[steve B]

It's basically a contract. If you buy this ticket, and you enter the stadium, you are entered into it and waive your right to free speech. It's just the Yankees covering their ass in case someone tries to sue based on free speech.


That's probably already happened. I have a friend who works as a librarian for a law firm and he says whenever I see some crazy warning on something like "don't use hedge trimmer in shower" or "don't pick up lawnmower while running" You can be sure someone was actually that stupid, sued and won because there were no warnings or directions covering that. (The first example I made up, the second actually happened, someone picked up a running gas lawnmower an attempted to use it as a hedge trimmer with -at least to me- predictable results. He won :mad:)

So it's probable that someone got kicked out of Yankee stadium and sued based on free speech. Even if they didn't win, that's an expensive thing for the team, so it goes on the ticket.

Have a read of the back of a ski lift ticket someday. When I started in the 70's the back basically said "skiing can be dangerous and you're responsible if you do something silly" Now it says that in something like 4 paragraphs. (They can and will also send you off to rentals if you have really old equipment and it's not a planned vintage ski day)

Steve B

[T206Collector]

When people cite their First Amendment rights on here, there are always a bunch of lawyers who like to point out the lack of governmental action here on a private message board. To get side tracked by what the Constitution says in this context is really besides the point.

The only point is what limitations on your ability to say whatever you want on Net54 are put in place by Leon. To say that he operates anything but a card forum that encourages the free expression of ideas related to baseball cards is just plain wrong. You have all of the freedom on here that you need or deserve.

[travrosty]

once the cherry picking begins on what to allow and what not to allow, people will try to figure out how to get in good with the moderator, then it goes from there. (i am not saying this moderator can be bought), but others have been) we have seen it on other sites.

if someone slanders, then sue that person. period. otherwise it gets to a point where preferred speech is allowed, and the stuff that some people dont like to hear is not allowed. thats bad news. you cant get two sides of a story if one side is banned. if someone wants the moderator to decide what is slander and libel and what isnt, then we have created a sticky wicket. the moderator should need to have a law degree to moderate. i think the person that complained either didnt read the forum rules or thought they shouldnt apply to him? its right there in black and white and if he doesnt like it, there are the north korea sites out there that some of us have tried, and its no fun.

[Wymers Auction]

I like Adrian. He grows on you after awhile
I like Adrian also. I think enthusiasm is great for the hobby.

[EvilKing00]

IMO no need to remove posts. An open forum is exactly that, open to say what you want.

[Harliduck]

Way late to the party...but as a Moderator on a very large Waterfowl hunting forum for over 13 years, I appreciate the fact Leon has stayed firm with his convictions and position, regardless of who is PM/Messaging him. All too often Moderators play both sides of the fence to appease the squeaky wheel and it just causes issues and you loose forum integrity. I happen to 100% agree with him on this issue, but even if I didn't, I am just glad there is zero waffling...this makes a forum strong and respected. I have seen too many forums on various subjects die because of this...thanks Leon!

[the 'stache]

I am a firm believer in transparency. Anybody can read this forum, as it should be.

Leon, I applaud your response. There are few rules in place, and they are on display for all to see. You have made it abundantly clear that forum members are responsible for their own actions, and as adults, we need to understand what we do or say can have consequences. If this person that messaged you has taken issue with a member's posts, they are free to pursue them legally if they so choose. Beyond that, I don't understand what they expected from you.

[Sean1125]

At least you won't be kicked off this board for complete and utter bullshit reasons. You can speak your mind and as stated earlier "not run like a Korean dictatorship".

[Exhibitman]

If you do not know what natural, God given rights are then you will never understand.

Sincerely, Clayton

Puhleese, let's leave the "my god is mightier than yours" nonsense out of this discussion of baseball card chat board policies. Assuming arguendo there is a god, I don't think she cares about what is posted here.

But I digress. Leon, you are doing just fine with this board in terms of content of speech. About the only speech that needs to be regulated are (1) posts threatening other people, and (2) posts by scammers seeking to rip off people. Those things are damaging to the community and in violation of the rules already. The rest is fair game as far as I am concerned.

I also think that whoever it was who pitched the hissy fit needs to grow a pair. Ten seconds after the post is put up no one is really going to care that someone made #2 on your auctions unless you really are dirty. In all candor, most of the ranters who see conspiracies under every rock on Ebay or at a TPG and post about it incessantly sound demented inside of a few posts. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[Rickyy]

Fine as is Leon....you do a really fine job of keeping the riff raffs to a minimum... besides we seem to have all the guys (and gals?) with legal backgrounds chime in when we are edging towards the ledge of trouble... I feel safe and warm in here most days... :o

Ricky Y

[Runscott]

Puhleese, let's leave the "my god is mightier than yours" nonsense out of this discussion of baseball card chat board policies. Assuming arguendo there is a god, I don't think she cares about what is posted here.

Where the heck did that come from? He said "God given rights" - that could be any god of any religion. If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

[teetwoohsix]

"Puhleese, let's leave the "my god is mightier than yours" nonsense out of this discussion of baseball card chat board policies. Assuming arguendo there is a god, I don't think she cares about what is posted here."

What a way to twist my words around. You must be a lawyer.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Freedom of Speech is a natural law, but so is the right to defend oneself and one's property. So when two natural laws conflict, which one prevails? In cases of slander or defamation, US law generally believes that it is a limit to free speech and the right to defend one's property (by extension their reputation) would prevail.

But to each his own opinion...

[calvindog]

if you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to seattle.

lol

[Shoele$$]

If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

lol, good one...

[Exhibitman]

Where the heck did that come from? He said "God given rights" - that could be any god of any religion. If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

Why does it have to be a god at all? Why does a god have to intrude into the discussion?

To answer your question, where my comment came from is my frustration at seeing a discussion of board policies degenerate into a religious statement that was used to close out the discussion by, in essence, telling anyone who disagrees with the concept of a god-given right that he is wrong. The problem I had with that statement is not that Clayton believes in god--though that is the canard that the religious often resort to when confronted with the intellectual problems of the belief-based underpinnings of their arguments as to secular issues--but that he asserted a so-called natural set of rights which he postulated derive directly from a divine being as the basis for his intellectual position in a discussion of what subjects should be allowed to be discussed on a baseball card chat board.

As for your commentary, first, I am not sure what Seattle did to merit your apparent disdain--I've never been there--but I guess I can take your word for it that it somehow sucks sufficiently to serve as a destination for people with whom you disagree. Just how bad is Seattle? Are you saying that all non-believers are to be concentrated in Seattle? To what purpose or end, if I might ask, should we be exiled to that terrible place? Surely, it cannot be just to prevent us from posting on N54; although I've not been there, I assume that Seattle has internet service and people who live there could in theory post to N54? Is that wrong? Can anyone from Seattle stand up, JoJo Who style, and let us know that a person's a person, no matter how Seattle-based?

Setting that issue aside, yours is an interesting and logically challenged position to take. What you wrote in essence is that if I do not believe in god I have to go to a place that you presumably find distasteful or unwholesome. If that is not what you meant to write, by all means please clarify your position. If, however, I have accurately deconstructed your statement, then I have to ask whether you also agree that I can with equal validity hold the opposite view, namely that if you have a problem with someone [I]not believing in religions or gods maybe you should move to somewhere like Tehran? If my suggesting that you go to Tehran because you are not an atheist is a problematic concept for you to swallow, perhaps you should rethink your statement.

[Exhibitman]

lol, good one...
Right, from a guy who lives in Vegas...Say, maybe I could go to Las Vegas instead? I could make that work...

[Exhibitman]

"Puhleese, let's leave the "my god is mightier than yours" nonsense out of this discussion of baseball card chat board policies. Assuming arguendo there is a god, I don't think she cares about what is posted here."

What a way to twist my words around. You must be a lawyer.

Sincerely, Clayton

Nice ad hominem attack there, buddy. I don't see what my job has to do with anything, anymore than my race or national origin.

[Runscott]

Adam, this is two posts in a row where you responded to a straw man of your own creation; thoroughly, it's true, and I anxiously wait your straw man's reply.

(are you going to create a forum membership for him?)

[Exhibitman]

Adam, this is two posts in a row where you responded to a straw man of your own creation; thoroughly, it's true, and I anxiously wait your straw man's reply.

(are you going to create a forum membership for him?)

Wrong, again, Scott. It is three ;)

[teetwoohsix]

Nice ad hominem attack there, buddy. I don't see what my job has to do with anything, anymore than my race or national origin.

I think I mentioned the word "God" one time.....are you that sensitive? I said "you must be a lawyer" because lawyers are good at twisting people's words around, which is what you did with my statement. You are, in my opinion, leaning this thread into a "religious" thing.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Adam does make a decent point - natural law is natural, not theological. So the natural rights wouldn't be God-given.

"even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." - Hugo Grotius

This is an important distinction because it serves to prevent human rights abuses against non-believers or primitive peoples. So natural law must derive from the natural world, and our natural state as human beings, not from God.

[Cardboard Junkie]

I'm so glad I did a lot of acid in the sixties.

[teetwoohsix]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sincerely, Clayton

Good one.:)

[teetwoohsix]

Good one.:)

Thanks :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[4815162342]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sincerely, Clayton

+ a gazillion or three

[Shoele$$]

Right, from a guy who lives in Vegas...Say, maybe I could go to Las Vegas instead? I could make that work...

With your attitude...you're better off staying where you're at ;)

We have enough socially awkward people here to last us a lifetime, we're good, thanks though.

[Runscott]

With your attitude...you're better off staying where you're at ;)

We have enough socially awkward people here to last us a lifetime, we're good, thanks though.

It's tough avoiding the temptation to 'win' discussions in an internet forum - most fail (to avoid the temptation), and I certainly include myself in that group. When this happens, all you can do is apologize and move on. There are a few people in this forum who I have offended at one time or another, and who have refused to forget and move on. It makes me uncomfortable to be so important to someone who I have never met.

I sincerely hope to meet a good chunk of you at the National, and to mend some of the past offenses.

[Leon]

It's tough avoiding the temptation to 'win' discussions in an internet forum - most fail (to avoid the temptation), and I certainly include myself in that group. When this happens, all you can do is apologize and move on. There are a few people in this forum who I have offended at one time or another, and who have refused to forget and move on. It makes me uncomfortable to be so important to someone who I have never met.

I sincerely hope to meet a good chunk of you at the National, and to mend some of the past offenses.

I thought you were going to say there are a few people in this forum you "haven't" offended :).

[teetwoohsix]

Because I want to respect the fact that this is a vintage baseball card forum, and really didn't intend to offend anyone here, I posted in the watercooler section of this board where off topics are welcomed.

Rather than starting a new thread, since what I posted was relevant to the conversation on the "assault weapon ban" thread, I posted a link to a video that I would hope anyone interested in "the Constitution" and "the Bill of Rights" would take a look at.

I doubt anyone can deny anything in that film.

Thank you for the open forum Leon :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

I thought you were going to say there are a few people in this forum you "haven't" offended :).

That would probably be more accurate, but at least I'm good for increasing post-count :)

I can honestly say, with only one exception, everyone who ever thought they were an internet enemy, became a friend when we met. Of course, that might be due to the other guy's magnanimity, but it still counts.

There is one guy here who I am afraid might punch me in real life, but I'm relying on you to warn me if he gets too close :)

[Tim Kindler]

"Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?"
- Eddie Harris Major League

[steve B]

The directions this has gone reminded me of this........


Conan: What gods do you pray to?

Subotai: I pray to the four winds... and you?

Conan: To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen.

Subotai: [chuckles] What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said.

Conan: He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of cardboard?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!

Subotai: Ah, my god is greater.

Conan: [chuckles] Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain.

Subotai: My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him.

[Conan shoots Subotai a skeptical look. Subotai laughs]


With apologies to the writers of the original:D

Steve B

[mr2686]

It's tough avoiding the temptation to 'win' discussions in an internet forum - most fail (to avoid the temptation), and I certainly include myself in that group. When this happens, all you can do is apologize and move on. There are a few people in this forum who I have offended at one time or another, and who have refused to forget and move on. It makes me uncomfortable to be so important to someone who I have never met.

I sincerely hope to meet a good chunk of you at the National, and to mend some of the past offenses.

I find that fences get mended pretty darn quick when you're buying the first few rounds! ;)

[HRBAKER]

The directions this has gone reminded me of this........


Conan: What gods do you pray to?

Subotai: I pray to the four winds... and you?

Conan: To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen.

Subotai: [chuckles] What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said.

Conan: He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of cardboard?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!

Subotai: Ah, my god is greater.

Conan: [chuckles] Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain.

Subotai: My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him.

[Conan shoots Subotai a skeptical look. Subotai laughs]


With apologies to the writers of the original:D

Steve B


NO, they should apologize to us!

[Runscott]

I find that fences get mended pretty darn quick when you're buying the first few rounds! ;)

Greedy, aren't we? :)

[steve B]

NO, they should apologize to us!

Not a fan I guess?

I was refering to my swapping "cardboard" for "steel" in the quote. Something I think everyone missed.

Having finally read a few of the books it wasn't that bad a movie, could have been, but was saved by the only actor available at the time who would have been at all convincing.
Hercules in New York on the other hand.....

Steve B

[HRBAKER]

Not a fan I guess?

I was refering to my swapping "cardboard" for "steel" in the quote. Something I think everyone missed.

Having finally read a few of the books it wasn't that bad a movie, could have been, but was saved by the only actor available at the time who would have been at all convincing.
Hercules in New York on the other hand.....

Steve B

Steve,

I got the reference, and yes, I thought it was a bad movie - but your post was excellent! :)

[steve B]

Steve,

I got the reference, and yes, I thought it was a bad movie - but your post was excellent! :)

Thanks.

My sense of humor can be strange, and either is too obscure or too over the top at times. I seldom know if it's just missed or not funny.

If there are clips online of the original Hercules in NY check it out. Briefly. Arnolds accent was so bad they dubbed it with someone who had no accent. It makes Conan look like Oscar material.

I agree conan isn't great compared to some of the really great films, but it's way beyond the crop of really awful imitations that followed. There are very few action movies that work as serious films. And even fewer that come out of Hollywood.

Steve B