Lock of Andrew K thread

[jim stone]

As a public forum you have the right to express yourself and barring any obscenities you should have the right to express your opinions and that also means disagreeing with someone.

I don't see it that way at all... I think we have the priviledge of posting.

Public or not, it's still Dale's place.

Yes, this is private property, Dale owns it. If I understand how these
things work, he could charge money for our posting here,
if he chose, or require passwords. He also could, if he wanted to,
bounce people in an arbitrary and capricious way--I don't believe
any recourse is available, except mailing him and appealing
to him to reconsider, etc.

People who feel that Dale made a mistake in bouncing andrew
have expressed this view quite straightfowardly
several times. If that was going to change anything,
it would have by now. Also a good number of people here
disagree strongly with this view--they just aren't
going on about it. That people
aren't responding doesn't mean they agree.

Andrew isn't coming back--bottom line. The 'Bring back Andrew'
advocates have said thier piece.
There's nothing
more you'all can do about it--I know that some of you
have tried to persuade Dale to change his mind (you've
told me so in PMs). Good for you.
To go on, under the circumstances,
begins to appear self-indulgent--it makes the fluteboard an unpleasant
place and to no purpose.

[Cynth]

Blackwood---I don't know what specific post caused Dale to ban AndrewK. However, I was following this thread as it was developing and was quite shocked at the lack of civility shown by AndrewK:
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=28500&start=0

On the first page, go down to this post:

andrewK wrote:
Well it is most interesting to learn that Mr Pratten took any interest in 4 keyed flutes !


I don't know much about flutes. What are you saying?

You then need to read from AndrewK's answer to Dale's question on to the end of the thread. I find some very uncivil behavior toward two different people. I'm not going to copy it all out here. I find a use of words that comes much closer to example #2 than to example #1. This is my opinion. You may disagree. That is fine. I have gone this far to show that I have given this issue thought. I am not going to debate whether this is civil behavior or not. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

My apologies to others for continuing this. I just couldn't stop myself.

[rich]

Cynth,

Can you then point to the specific post by andrew in the thread that applies to the standard you quoted that caused Dale to ban andrew?

Sven

Give it a freakin' REST. He was banned, he got a second chance, he kept doing the same thing he was told not to do, and now he is banned again.

I'm not the American government, so the American Constitution doesn't give you freedom of speech on this forum that I host and Dale maintains. Andrew and everyone else have no guaranteed freedoms here whatsoever, so you can lay off on the rhetoric.

This forum is not a public place. This is a private place that I host and Dale watches over. You and everyone else are welcome to participate here, but that does not mean you have the right to do so. There are lots of people who can contribute useful things about flutes, but being able to contribute useful things about flutes is not in the criteria for posting here, and regularly disrupting other users' enjoyment of the forums is a great way to wear out your welcome.

Of course it's censorship. It's exactly the same censorship that's been applied with an even hand since the forum started up in 1999 or so, and I'd say it's worked pretty well thus far. If you want a no-holds-barred forum where anyone is free to write whatever they please no matter how disruptive, then you're in the wrong place, and this one is not going to change to suit you.

Incidentally, posting a new thread after one is locked is not going to change anyone's mind about Andrew -- it's going to make you look like someone incapable of taking a hint.

-rich

[lixnaw]

deep in the heart of every person there's something good, and so there is in andrewK.
we're all humans and non is better than the other, we just try to give our best.
but this board has its rules, and we can't go without them.

[RudallRose]

Ouch!

God, I love this place sometimes!

[Blackwood]

Rich wrote:

Give it a freakin' REST.....Of course it's censorship

Well that clarified the question i had originally asked.

Please note I had posted only once on the original andrew thread (among 114 posts). This was my second post for which it appears i'm being asked to shut up. Nice.

As a closing comment I do however find it interesting that so far nobody has been able to point out the specific post that caused andrew to be banned.

However since I'm being told quite agressively that I am apparently not welcome to post my opinion I will take the "hint" and joint the silent majority...

Cheers

[NicoMoreno]

Dale said, quite plainly I thought, that he could post specific reasons, but he chose not to, in fairness to Andrew, since Andrew is no longer able to post.

It should be enough for you to believe that Dale had reasons for what he did.

[rich]

As a closing comment I do however find it interesting that so far nobody has been able to point out the specific post that caused andrew to be banned.

You're right, no-one has, no-one will, and no-one can. A single post from a forum participant (and not, say, spammers) will never get someone banned here. But you keep talking about this single post as if it exists, even though people have explained to you that there is no single post. It's a good rhetorical device when it works, because it makes it look like Dale and I are ready to jump on anyone who makes one misstep.

It isn't working, though, <i>because</i> you've been told repeatedly that Andrew has had a long history of disruptive behavior here. He was banned for it once, and then he created another account to get around the ban, and us evil censors <i>let him get away with it</i> to give him a second chance. He hadn't changed a thing, though, so we acknowledged our error in doing so.

I'm slowly learning that second chances are not worth the trouble.

-Rich

[eilam]

man, this feels ugly, I think it's a good time to take a break.
eilam.

[Dale]

I locked the thread in response to a legitimate concern that, essentially, it's a thread about two people, one of whom is not here to defend himself. (I'm the other.) But the issue being raised, our old friend "Dale vs. Free Speech," you guys are free to debate as long as you wish, I suppose.

Thanks to those who have been supportive.

Dale

[Blackwood]

Dale wrote:

locked the thread in response to a legitimate concern that, essentially, it's a thread about two people, one of whom is not here to defend himself

Dale I had mistaken your original intention for locking the post, my apologies.

Sven

[Dale]

Dale wrote:

locked the thread in response to a legitimate concern that, essentially, it's a thread about two people, one of whom is not here to defend himself

Dale I had mistaken your original intention for locking the post, my apologies.

Sven

Gladly accepted.

[Dale]

Yes, I agree that Dale can run the board as he sees fit. But, he's not necessarily above reproach.

Stuart

That is so true. In fact, let's just stipulate: I'm not above reproach.

[Denny]

So we have:
Dale, the Undisputed, but not above reproach...

[Dale]

So we have:
Dale, the Undisputed, but not above reproach...

It's kinda like a zen deal.