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:

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

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.

Adrian
 

I like Adrian. He grows on you after awhile

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

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.

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

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

Sincerely, Clayton

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.

i agree w/how Leon handled it.

"FREEEEDOOOOOMMMM!!!"


http://www.actlikeaman.org/wp-conten...32-241x300.jpg

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. :)

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/8199/8...f2a97447_c.jpg

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

Every one of our rights
 

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

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

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/showthr...162027&page=21

See Sec. 22.01.(2)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I like Adrian also. I think enthusiasm is great for the hobby.

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

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!

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

"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

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...

lol

lol, good one...

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 [in my view] 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 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.

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

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.

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 ;)

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

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.

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

"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.:)

Thanks :)

Sincerely, Clayton

+ a gazillion or three

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.

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

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

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 :)

Interesting Thread
 

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

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

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

NO, they should apologize to us!

Greedy, aren't we? :)

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! :)

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