The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Rules According to Zeeshan.
54 replies
zeeshan said on March 30, 2003 14:06:
Ok folks those new guidelines will take a long time to read so to summarize thing here is wat the TDR team wants us to do.
Off-Topic: Talk about your world, your love, your life... about anything but war or anything which is true :)
harriej said on March 30, 2003 14:11:
Zee,
Yes, you seem to be right.
I hate censuur (or how is that word written).
RoxNox:
As long as the “flamed” people do not mind, it is no problem. But I don’t think that’s the problem, because then the “flaming”replys could have been deleted and not the whole forum.
LittleSpooky said on March 31, 2003 00:47:
A little something I learned a while ago:
What is Freedom of Speech?
It’s the freedom to go to Central Park get up on a soapbox and say “I think this goverment stinks... or I love the Beatles... or I dislike Mayor Bloomberg.”
Censorship is when a goverment, a GOVERNMENT or authority like a School Principal, prevents Free Speech or Freedom of the Press with prior restraint they stop it before it’s said before the school newspaper is published. The editor of a newspaper does not censor he edits, or decides what to publish or not to publish. THIS, is Freedom of the Press.
A free press can decide for THEMSELVES what they want to, or not to, publish. An individual who wants to publish his OWN newspaper can do so THAT is freedom of the press. And if he just wants to publish some pamphlet some flyer, that is Freedom of Speech (in written form), BUT we don’t have the right to expect that something we want to say has to be published in somebody ELSE’S newspaper, or somebody else’s flyer, or *website* and when that person who DOES own that newspaper or *website* or radio station DECLINES to print something in particular, that is NOT denying someone their Freedom of Speech and it’s NOT censorship as we’ve already established that only a CENSOR can exercise censorship. And for someone to be a Censor they have to be working for an authority governmental, institutional, etc. It’s a fine line perhaps but if the New York Post decides not to print a particular Letter to the Editor that letter has not been Censored they’ve just chosen not to print it.
And if the Post had a website with a forum if they decided not to let a particular post remain “as submitted” and they either edited it or deleted it
that would NOT be censorship. That would simply be their excercising their right to publish only what they wish.
*spell checked*
Jud (moderator) said on March 31, 2003 07:21:
As long as there’s people who call somebody stupid for not having the same point of view, threads will be edited, closed, ....
What will it be next time?
Talking about favourite colours:
Somebody:”My fave is blue, and I don’t like pink”
Another somebody: “How can you NOT like pink?? are you stupid or what?? ps: Blue sux”
zeeshan said on March 31, 2003 08:58:
Ok so lets skip the sarcasm. Lets get to the point. Lars and Tenveso and others what I got from those guides was that essentially the FLAMING has been discouraged (something very good!) but we can still discuss ANYTHING as long as someone doesn’t flames us right? So next time if anyone does flaming here and there then just delete those comments instead of whole threads :)
Roxrider_USA said on March 31, 2003 15:06:
@everyone: I told you guys that those war threads had become a competition in which most repliers were saying and counter saysing things all the time. In some instances, some repliers were even insulting others only because they didn’t have the same belief or opinion as someone else did. When threads like this come up, as well as threads concerning sensitive topics, there’s a problem because unfortunately, we as humans, fail to understand others and listen, analyse what was said and reply to that with intelligence and respect. We see now the result of that.
I’m glad that those we taken out, although i really enjoy discussing about such topics with those who can just discuss and not take it personally.
Take care friends.
Carlos E., New York.
zeeshan said on March 31, 2003 15:16:
Carlos but don’t you think that the FLAMING PART shud have been deleted instead of the whole thread?
vaxjoe said on March 31, 2003 15:19:
U know what? Rubbish! People flame each other even on Roxette section where we discuss about Roxette...
A flamer doesnt care about the topic! He just enjoys flaming and making others angry!
So dont tell me that it was the topics that caused that!
Roxrider_USA said on March 31, 2003 15:25:
@Zee and Vaxjoe: Flaming wasn’t the main problem. I really believe that the war threads were taken out due to what i discussed about. It was just slitting people. It wasn’t healthy anymore. Just pure competition. Childish sometimes.
Take care.
Carlos E., New York.
Aaso said on March 31, 2003 18:50:
I think deleting those threads was just deleting the problem. They should try to find the solution instead of erasing the base of problem!!
Why didn’t they delet the FLAMING person instead of deleting the whole section??!!
You think it will never happen again. I don’t think so. We should first try to learn how to listen to opposit ideas!
wendy said on March 31, 2003 18:53:
Aaso,i totally agree with :)
C’mon,search for that flaming person,and throw him out :D
Aaso said on March 31, 2003 19:06:
Wendy I think everyone knows the mentioned person as well as we know!!!! Come on guys let’s work it out!! *angry*
LittleSpooky said on March 31, 2003 20:06:
If you were to remove the person / people responsible for flaming:
Bye Zeeshan, wendy, Aaso, Vaxjoe, LittleSpooky, coyboy, sweets, and a handful of others. We are no longer allowed because we flame.
Do you see how well THAT idea was thought out? Remove the post. THEN if necessary, ban the user. But if you were to start removing users, those that are mentioned above, are the first ones to go.
Aaso said on March 31, 2003 20:28:
Thax Little spooky *I thought everyone think of me as a girl who only knows how to love* !!!
OK, Let’s vote for the flaming ones :DD
Roxrider_USA said on March 31, 2003 21:39:
Well, i hope this thread doesn’t become just like the deleted war threads.
@Littlespooky: I’m curious, would i be included in those handful that would likely be deleted or banned? (Hope not), lol.
@Mel: Babe, i think that TDR should only delete or ban members when it’s an extreme case. Besides that, i believe that editing the not allowed content in the flamers’ posts would suffice even though i don’t mind that they were completely taken out. Well, this is my opinion. (I miss you lots) muahhh!! Preciso de você. :-).
Take care!
Carlos E., New York.
sweet_stalker57 said on April 1, 2003 00:13:
can they keep him quiet, delete every sweet stalker post?
he sits at home munchie-wunching on lomtiks of toast
can they erase him, seperate the good from the bad?
nope! I still have them all pasted on my word pad
LittleSpooky said on April 1, 2003 03:31:
Carlos: In all of the war discussions, I never once witnessed you put someone down or call them an idiot or stupid or anything of the like. So, no. You wouldn’t be in that list. I know I am
Aaso said on April 1, 2003 09:32:
Yesterday the soldiers shot at the people running in the city and they killed 7 civilians!!!!
PS: I’m not talking about WAR between Iraq and USA. It’s just about the movie that I saw yesterday onTV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
coyboyusa said on April 1, 2003 14:31:
last time i checked the rules stated no flaming or personal attacks..i didn’;t seeen anything in the thread about no war discussion..u can talk just no vulgar language images etc..this is a public forum and thus there is no restriction as to how old a person is who comes here....and some of the images presented were out of line
Roxrider_USA said on April 1, 2003 16:08:
@Littlespooky: Thanks for letting me know.
@Mel: Muahhh!
Take care!
Carlos E., New York.
zeeshan said on April 1, 2003 18:39:
if I were in America then I wud have easily said “Rules are MEANT to be broken” :P but since I am not then YES! people should follow them.
Z
wendy said on April 1, 2003 18:59:
Oh,i didn’t knew i was “a flamer” :DD
Thx for telling me :p
Everything i say come right out of my mind,and well,people told me more then once to count till 10 before i say something :D
Hmm,gotta work on it,i just hope i still can be the real me :p
LittleSpooky said on April 1, 2003 20:06:
Wendy: It’s not about individuality. It’s about THINKING before you open your mouth. Half of what I’ve seen you post here has been offensive to me in one form or another. HOWEVER, I’ve let most of it go because I KNOW that it will serve no purpose to continue on.
If I said what I thought every time, I’d be out of a job, if not dead, for someone would have kicked the holy crap out of me.
LittleSpooky said on April 2, 2003 02:36:
The point I was ORIGINALLY trying to make was:
It would be unintelligent to start arbitrarily banning people, as suggested in someone else’s post (Aaso’s, I believe). I used several names as an example. I wasn’t listing everyone or every trouble maker. That wasn’t the point.
vaxjoe said on April 2, 2003 05:08:
Excuse me when u ppl talk with your friends u never flame when u disagree? Cmon i had enough with that flaming bullshit!!!
Its not like we re killing each other...unlike some other old crazy madman ;)
LittleSpooky said on April 2, 2003 06:11:
vax: Not to the point that this had gotten to, no. Half the stuff here was down right insulting.
vaxjoe said on April 2, 2003 06:18:
LS: babes thats only Words on a screen..do u really think i can let that hurt me? or would u let it?
LittleSpooky said on April 2, 2003 06:35:
vax: Some people do
And like I said... the point I was originally making thorugh all of this was that banning people outright would be absurd
wendy said on April 2, 2003 08:01:
Well,let’s start telling those flaming people to stop then,right???
Also you,LS!!
I can’t remember how long it is ago since i’ve flamed someone,yeah,well,that Bush-thingie,but,i think you’re not Bush,right?and,i think that’s not flaming,but that’s called “having an own opinion”
If i sound “offensive” to you,well,sorry,my excuses,but,that’s not what i meant to be...
I just think you interpret me wrong,that’s all,cuz i always try to be as “sweet” and “true” as much i can,and i use smiley’s like : :p :D :) ;) :( and those :@ in the let’s bitch-thread,but well,everyone bitches there,isn’t it?? :D
So,once again,Sorry to everyone i’ve ever flamed.
And,i think here are a lot of people who haves to say “sorry”
(before you start....I don’t wanna hear a flaming answer towards me,i wanna hear a “sorry” too...)
Thx
zeeshan said on April 2, 2003 09:54:
LS: Is it me or is it really that you take opinions as FLAMES? A flame would be like if I call anyone around an a55hole or son of b**** or call names which are disgusting or somethin’.
Don’t take this hard. I agree with Vaxjoe that if we are friends then there is no point of flaming anyone who is a friend. In all those threads, I never felt if I was being flamed or if I was flaming anyone. Spooky, you mentioned my name in the flamer’s-list of yours so there must be something that u felt about it. If you ever felt that I am flaming you then please try to trust me that I DID NOT MEAN TO FLAME YOU or ANYONE ELSE!! I don’t flame people and rest assured that you will find me proving my own words. I know the worth of the word of mouth.
Wendy: I guess u DON’T need to “try” to be sweet and true ’cuz in the end, you AREEEEEE sweet, cute, true and a lot of choclate. If you felt that I flamed you in any of those threads (plez DO tell me if I did) then I AM SOOOOOOOO SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I hope I made my point. If anyone still has any confusion please do let me know, I will try to clear any confusions.
Zee
wendy said on April 2, 2003 10:25:
Hey,Zee,if you ever flamed me,you’re forgiven ;)
But,i can’t remember you did,or you didn’t,if i have to keep that in my mind,well,then i would be pretty busy,cuz i’ve been flamed a lot of times :D
Roxrider_USA said on April 2, 2003 15:20:
And here we go again and again!!! It’s humane, people! It’s humane.
Just take care guys!
Carlos E., New York.
Aaso said on April 2, 2003 18:38:
Hey friends, If I ever FALMED anybody with my foolish words .... ok I’m sorry. But exactly I can not remeber that :(
And I never felt like beeing flamed by anybody. But I’ve seen SOME *maybe 1* guys who made other people like a bitch!!! With thier words just when they did not agree with their opinions!
Anyway, I do appologize about my bad part of posts :DDDDD
People will you please forgive me about that??
*Believe me I can not pretend when I feel bad about something, and absolutely it goes to WAR makers- BUSH + SADDAM, not anyone on TDR*
Aaso said on April 2, 2003 18:41:
*It would be unintelligent to start arbitrarily banning people* Sure LS but Is it intelligent when that mentioned people use so many bad words and bad things about the others ....
Hey people am I the only one who thinks like this ??
Jud (moderator) said on April 2, 2003 21:11:
I think we have different meanings for “flaming”. For me flaming is calling sb idiot, stupid or stronger words (as Zee put as example before) and *not* replying with your own opinion. We DO have different opinions, and we just speak them out.
Another thing - and for me that *is* flaming - is answering “you are stupid for thinking that” “you a**hole”.
As far as I recall there is *one* person who loves to laugh and insult, not only here but in 90% of this person’s answers.
Anyway, peace!
LittleSpooky said on April 3, 2003 05:52:
Zee: It’s not worth wasting band width over. I can’t beat it into anyone’s dense skulls, so I’m not gonna worry about it.
zeeshan said on April 3, 2003 07:12:
“I can’t beat it into anyone’s dense skulls” LS this CAN be taken as flaming :) EASY girll!! EASY! :)
sweet_stalker57 said on April 4, 2003 02:03:
“I refuse to believe that everyone refuses to believe the truth!”
vaxjoe said on April 4, 2003 02:29:
zeeshan 4/2/2003 21:07
vaxjoe: No brother I am not a war reporter. I read some figures around 900 civilian casualties. I never rejected your figures. The actual meaning behind it was that the number of civilian casualties varies and that nothing is confirmed yet. So please don’t get angry. Also, would you please tell me what does “official” number means?
LS: (*_*)
Vaxjoe: So you like to tease me? Ok.. go on, keep on trying but err... it is not that easy to tease me :)
One more clarification here. That Rules According to Zeeshan was a parody of TWATG. Yes, I am NO Gessle (gosh I would wish to be one!). That subject was intended to be a bit funny which was posted after new rules for the TDR OFFTOPIC FORUM. Read the first post again and then analyze it yourself.
————————————–
1.Official: what the iraqi authorities give
2.I know that “The rules...” was a parody of TWAG thats why i said that u think u r e mr Gessle..again i was teasing.
camillarox said on April 4, 2003 07:26:
your truth I would say, as you can see, many people here have another truth.
Aaso said on April 4, 2003 09:47:
Again and again and again .... we are going on and we wont care :) Just like the world .... It’s going on and on and on .... and it wont stop being cruel to people !
Rox_Nox2003 said on March 30, 2003 14:10:
you can discust those things as long as you don’t start punshin other people’s faces with it which is why those topic were erased... people just could’t discuss it in a more civilised way ..they had to start flamming one another as always