Originally Posted By Mr X So I start a topic about a current event involving Mormons. It disappears. I figure maybe my sarcastic commentary had something to do with it, so I make a new topic with completely neutral comments. It disappears too. I guess we're not allowed to discuss things that Josh doesn't approve of. Way to go, Josh. Now if only you could stifle the rest of the world, you guys'll be all set.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip X... I'm sympathetic to your view on censorship. I've had quite a few of my posts deleted for what I thought were minor reason like saying "tittie" (oops... this one is gone too). But the whole Mormon thing has gone WAY OVER THE EDGE here at LP. Not so much by you, but by the many others that "pile on". I would personally be very happy to never see another Mormon thread on LP. P.S. I'm not the person who ratted you out.
Originally Posted By Mr X So what, they we're not allowed to discuss issues that involve Mormons? That's ridiculous, this is "world events" and they are causing a lot of events!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***P.S. I'm not the person who ratted you out.*** On that note, there was nothing TO "rat out", particularly on my second try where I was extremely careful to write NOTHING that could be construed as offensive or biased. Frankly I didn't write anything untoward on the first try either, except to sarcastically note my happiness about the fact that the Mormons might be $50 million bucks less able to do their damage to society (I suppose if I wrote the same diatribe towards the Muslims the thread would've been happily received...but I digress).
Originally Posted By beamerdog Thanks, X. Because of your thread, I found several entertaining sites while googling several words + Mormon. Can you email me the correct news link? I just want to hear all sides of the story so I can make up my own mind. <<<hoping I said that in the right way so I don't get this thread deleted.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's the link Beamer, as long as it may last... <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=an7Pm3hkmauw" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...m3hkmauw</a>
Originally Posted By DAR My guess X(and it was wrong to take it down) is that it was probably going to be another 300+ Mormon thread with a ton of admins in it and then eventually has going to be closed down. I'm guessing the admin just decided to cut their losses early. But again I don't think it should have been removed.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Well, the reason why it was deleted is, I had the opportunity to see Mr. X's original post where he basically said "Great job, I am happy they got screwed out of their money, "they deserved it" etc etc... It was extremely poor taste, mean spirited and hateful, he is only hoping to start a flame war with this.....
Originally Posted By ecdc First, the word censorship is used WAY too much in this culture. Censorship typically applies to government or large institutions that take away choice from individuals. Real censorship rarely happens. Most people still have a way to discuss or read what was blocked by the organization. In this case, LP is a privately owned and moderated website. What happened isn't censorship. Second X, your post could have been interpreted as violating community standards for a personal attack. I read that thread too, and I agree with William - it was in poor taste. I get your frustration, honestly, but it wasn't censorship, IMO.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I didn't see the thread, but I don't think it's out of line to say that we get it, X doesn't like the Mormon religion. Neither do I, not in the slightest, tiniest bit, but after a while, what more really needs to be said about it here? I'm sure at some point in the future the topic will arise again, but I don't believe it's unreasonable to ask for a break on the Mormon bashing. That said, if some Mormon comes on here thinking there's a free pass to poke the hive, I wouldn't do that, either. ecdc is right about censorhsip. Let's not forget this is a privately run site. The owner(s) and their agents have to think about their readership as whole. We know they get plenty of complaints about this section. If you plainly give them something to complain about, you really can't say much when there's a reaction. The site is under no obligation to let every thread or post stay up, even if there are no profanities or attacks.
Originally Posted By Mr X While I'll make no apologies about being mean spirited and hateful towards those who are mean spirited and hateful, that really is irrelevant anyway. As I wrote, I started the other topic with nothing but neutral comments and a link to the Bloomberg article in question. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is. Obviously there are certain current event topics that we're not *allowed* to discuss. That's censorship.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Well, the reason why it was deleted is, I had the opportunity to see Mr. X's original post/// Are you the Ratatouille WilliamK99? It looks like you are loosely admitting to it. If you are the one then I hope that previous less than pleasant exchanges with Mr X didn't calatyse the shutdown. I would hope that a poster wouldn't be targeted for silence due to lingering personal animosities or straight up retaliation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I saw Mr. X's original post in question, too, simply because I happened to go to that thread shortly after it was posted/before it was deleted. Just because William saw it doesn't mean anything, probably, other than timing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is." Well, you're right, you don't. It the site operators exercising their discretion over what appears on these boards. None of us have an absolutely right to put whatever we want up here and expect it to stay. Like I said, I didn't see it. But if they determined it violated standards in some way, you know ahead of time they have the right to interpret those standards as they see fit and act accordingly. You have every right to complain, and they have every right to dismiss your complaint. As it relates to this board, no promises have been made to you that have been breached.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.<< Granted, there's different ways to define censorship. Certainly on one level, what you're describing can be loosely explained as "censorship." But on a more practical level, censorship happens when organizations, primarily the government, restricts individuals from having any choice in seeing something, reading something, or discussing something. You could easily bring this topic up in any number of other forums. That's not censorship. If the government declared that Marlee Matalin's book on President Obama was a security risk, banned all copies, had them pulled from libraries and homes, and prosecuted anyone caught with a copy, THAT's censorship. Obviously there are more murky, middle-ground areas. Several years ago a Rodin exhibit came to Brigham Young University in Provo. They refused to display the statue of "The Kiss," much to the bewilderment of...everyone. So is that censorship? Certainly people could see pictures of it or go online and see it. And if they wanted to see it live, they could travel to another city and do so. But on the other hand, I do think it's censorship. Traveling to see it elsewhere could be cost-prohibitive for most. Seeing it in person isn't the same as seeing a photograph. And as an educational institution, BYU has a commitment to the community-at-large. That was probably censorship. This ain't censorship, sorry X Oh, and I can't speak for the mods on why they'd delete your more benign post. That does seem odd.
Originally Posted By ecdc Crap. I just realized my post about BYU and Rodin indirectly brings up Mormonism. My apologies - I guess some of us just can't help it
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But if they determined it violated standards in some way*** And, skipping the snide remark for now, for the THIRD time the topic I'm talking about did not, in any way shape or form, violate ANY community standards here. I was VERY careful to keep my comments short, curt, and neutral. THAT'S why I'm saying it's censorship. Either they (the Mgmt) or someone else, didn't like the topic in question.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>for the THIRD time the topic I'm talking about did not, in any way shape or form, violate ANY community standards here. I was VERY careful<< X, with all due respect, I sort of doubt your definition of "very careful" is the same as the admins'.
Originally Posted By Mr X You didn't see it, Maw. I wrote something like "Wow, they got got, big time", and nothing more. A simple, neutral comment on the obvious, based on what I read in the B-Berg article. And EC, I do appreciate your point about censorship in the broader sense, I'm simply pointing out the fact that it seems there are certain topics now, on here, that are apparently taboo and it's funny considering the folks we've got posting here (and how one of them, at least, would like nothing more than to see nothing more written about his group no matter what they do).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And, skipping the snide remark for now, for the THIRD time the topic I'm talking about did not, in any way shape or form, violate ANY community standards here. I was VERY careful to keep my comments short, curt, and neutral." It wasn't meant to be snide. It's like you're looking to be offended here. Like mawnck said, your definitions and Admin's definitions are likely different.
