Forum Censorship

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
OK... even though a person who I have shunned has called me specifically on this forum recently
IDIOT and
BRAINLESS (although, as I have said, I like that!)

I hereby pledge to not type the word EMPEROR again on Eumpire. Perhaps a certain someone may want to take note of the words above and purge them from his list.

I believe, Mr Branch, that it is me that you have characterised as "a person who I have shunned". If it is, I don't believe that you can produce any quote by me, from this or any other forum, in which I have "specifically" called you either an IDIOT or BRAINLESS. Now please be careful, though. That doesn't mean I would deny calling your ideas IDIOTIC from time to time, and telling you why. I don't see anything wrong with that. Doubtless even Einstein had the odd idiotic idea; I know I have. Criticism of ideas is how those ideas are challenged and refined or rejected; even the idiotic ones. I don't ever recall using the word BRAINLESS in connection with either you or your ideas, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I certainly do remember suggesting that Rocky was the more intelligent partner in the duo of Rocky and Bulwinkle, and when paired Bulwinkle should always let Rocky call the shots for that reason. (grin)

In short, Mr Branch, I believe you may have inferred that which I did NOT imply. In any event, surely you are prepared to admit that if both the pot and the kettle can give up shouting "You're BLACK" then things are bound to improve in this forum?

{Kiss, kiss}... can we make up now? (grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 04:13 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
I do not consider ADMIN keeping a TOPIC board on topic censorship at all. I have no problem, in fact I PREFER it. It takes too much time weeding through the B.S., I'd prefer that all notes were about the topic.. Baseball Umpiring (good and bad).

But what is this @#% about Mr. Peter Osborne having his persona and ID deleted?? This is what I understand.. if not true, I'm sorry.

If Pete (who is an umpire with intelligence and writing skill) is not welcome here, then NO EWS member participate.

Mr Osborne, aka His High Holiness, aka His Holiness has had numerous posts rejected for inappropriate content. In that regard he was the proverbial "three time loser". His most recent effort was not only to have his post rejected by the ADMIN, but also to come back and MODIFY the ADMIN's message in his original post cautioning about adherance to the forum guidelines, adding a message of his own that was critical of the ADMIN, the owner's and implied bias. An all around unhappy camper. In that respect he basically ASKED for his own removal in much the same way that most coaches ASK to be ejected from the diamond. As Mr Batt said, that doesn't mean he can't come back any time he believes he can adhere to the forum guidelines. He just can't come back as HH or even HHH. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so, given the negative connotations that "persona" carried over from other boards.

As to whether the so-called "EWS members" are willing to participate in his absence... for mine that's no mas either way.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by HOLDTHE
Warren,

It would be hard for Moose or anybody to produce your quotes from threads that have been removed from the forum by your employer.

Even harder still if they really didn't exist in those removed threads, or any others, the first place, eh HT? (grin)

In another matter, I believe you are wrong regarding Peter getting his HHH name back. Brad unregistered me and I re-registered with my old name, HOLDTHE.

I'll take your word for that. My impression was that the moderator might also choose to exclude the "persona" of a repeat offender. I thought that's why Peter was forced to return last time as "His High Holiness", because the "His Holiness" persona had been excluded when he was removed. I don't know if that action has been taken on this occasion. If it hasn't then the sanctions against HHH are even less severe this time around, isn't that so? Even if that action HAS been taken, what's so wrong with him re-registering simply as Peter Osborne? Everyone knows that's who he is anyway, and his own name can have no negative connotations the way that HHH undoubtedly did.

One might be tempted to think, from our previous heated exchanges, that I believe Peter should be excluded from the Forum. Not so. In fact, when I was offered the opportunity to have him excluded at eTeamz, for negative posts directed specifically toward me, I quite deliberately declined. That is NOT the way I operate, especially not with regard to a fellow official no matter what I may think of him personally. It is my understanding that Peter has NOT been excluded at all; only de-registered.

One might also be tempted to think that I believe ALL of Peter's posts are worthless. Not so, even if I might have suggested that they were after some provocation and in the heat of the moment. To claim that ALL of Peter's posts have no intrinsic value is to unreasonably ignore much of his experience and perspective. As angry as his posts make me some times, I could not remain a reasonable person if I failed to acknowledge that occasionally they have real value for some officials.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 08:49 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by HOLDTHE
I remember reading one.

Gee, HT, I'd get that checked out if I were you. I've heard of people remembering all sorts of funny things, including past lives as Cleopatra or Nero. I think that can be a sign of health problems.

In regards to Peter, he isnt a concern of mine.

HT

Then, sir, why did YOU mention him in the first place? First suspect remembrances and then a loss of short term memory? Can't be a good sign, HT. I wouldn't waste any time in seeing your local practitioner for an educated opinion.

Cheers,

[Whowefoolin]

Reading, tirely, through all the posts, I have one thing to add. WE NEED BASEBALL SEASON TO START!!!

It sounds like a lot of cabin fever is going on. Let's get the games on. Leave the 5th Ammendment to the lawyers. Let's talk baseball!!!!!!!!

Max

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by GarthB
B.J.M. writes: Ah, Man!! But it is just so DAMN FUNNY!!

Labelling others isn't about humor. It's about power. It is saying: "I'm strong enough to re-name you."

It's about creating a convenient way to demonstrate one's hatred towards another

NO no no.. I am not letting this go, it portrays the wrong message and it misconstrues my purpose and intention.

Let's be clear. Nobody hates anyone. .well at least that applies to me.

Buttsnuffler was coined elsewhere and long ago. I know what it was meant for.. and agree it could be deemed offensive.

But the E***p**r? Means royalty, right? So far, I can't see the offense.

The REASON it ever came up is that SOME OF US (and all EWS members) were tired of YELLING at our computers after "certain persons" insisted on repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER the same platitudes that were just plain WRONG.
Someone has to take "certain persons" to task who announce themselves as Umpire Royalty, self described experts, and then announce as FACTS things that simply are not true.

It is an accurate application of the Grimm Fairy Tale. It is simply exposure of falsehoods, removing the wool from the eyes, and whatever other metaphor you would like.

AS a gift to all, I present the following link... ENJOY

http://www.interest.de/~krausst/grim...w.clothes.html

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

ah.. I did not TYPE the above, I pasted it.. so I am still in compliance with my NO E*** pledge.

[Bfair]

I cannot understand the elimination of the past posts of Peter Osborne. Certainly there are those who may find little worth in those deleted posts---that is their choice. However, there are many, some, or perhaps only a few who may find some of the content worthwhile---that is their choice also.

Or at least it was their choice at one point in time, however, it seems it no longer is their choice if they wish to review. Obviously those posts met the standards of the forum at one time or they would not have been allowed to remain at that time. Therefore, there is no reason to delete them now. In fact, I personally found many of Peter's postings no different than the posting that prompted Peter to write. Many were similar in technique of inuendo and wit. There obviously remains no way to compare the two, and it therefore is difficult to compare the "one" that remains.

An editor at eUmpire is fond of recalling Orwelle's "Animal Farm" and making analogies. It seems appropriate when he makes analogies, and inappropriate when others do. As I recall when I read the book, after defeating the farmer in their revolution, the animals decided to burn all that reminded them of the "ill ways" of the humans so they may forever forget them. They then made rules to follow so as not to change and become like their much hated humans. Over time, however, certain leaders began to change the rules to best meet their own needs, and in fact took on the traits of those "ill mannered" humans. That made things very allowable for them and certainly justified what they did to the other, less knowing animals. It seemed the animals who ultimately ended up running the show got rid of anything and everything that opposed them---even killing other animals (which was against their rules---at least before they changed the rules). The leaders continued to change the rules and enforce the rules to meet their specific needs, ideals, and viewpoints. They also eliminated the animals who opposed them or highlighted their methods to the other animals.

It is an excellent book though simplistic. I suspect both your editor and I can agree upon that. Those who may not have read it already, should read it. I hope I will remain as privileged as others in recanting the author and the story---it speaks well of certain issues in life.

Peter, I for one will miss your knowledge and wit. I will also miss the information you have provided in the past. It seems I can no longer find it...........

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
NO no no.. I am not letting this go, it portrays the wrong message and it misconstrues my purpose and intention.

Let's be clear. Nobody hates anyone. .well at least that applies to me.

Buttsnuffler was coined elsewhere and long ago. I know what it was meant for.. and agree it could be deemed offensive.

But the E***p**r? Means royalty, right? So far, I can't see the offense.

The REASON it ever came up is that SOME OF US (and all EWS members) were tired of YELLING at our computers after "certain persons" insisted on repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER the same platitudes that were just plain WRONG.
Someone has to take "certain persons" to task who announce themselves as Umpire Royalty, self described experts, and then announce as FACTS things that simply are not true.

Moose,

I accept your contention that you did not intend to offend anyone by your adoption of this label. I accept your contention that you do not "hate" anyone either. I share that sentiment.

Nevertheless, one might equally accuse YOU of being the E*p***r, and unable to see for fear of being labelled stupid or incompetent, IF you too are unable to see that suggesting someone is deluded, even self-deluded, enough to be unable to admit error IS offensive labelling! Let's phrase that claim another way, Moose...."Mr E you are WRONG, but you are too deluded, proud, stupid or incompetent to admit you are WRONG!" Isn't that what the Grimm Brothers fairytale is really saying about their E*p***r?

Look at this another way, Moose. You say you (collectively) came up with this label because you (collectively) became tired of screaming "You're WRONG!" at your computer screens every time you read the posts of certain people. True? In other words, you became frustrated that certain people persistently claimed as FACT issues which were NOT FACT in your eyes, isn't that so? So tell me, Moose, what makes you think that YOU are RIGHT in fact and THEY are WRONG in fact? If I say "what is 1 + 1" and you say 2 and someone else says 0, who is RIGHT then? Isn't RIGHT and WRONG relative in this case? If you weren't told from the start that those two tailors in the Grimm Brother's fairy tale were con-men and charletons, how would you really KNOW the E*p***r was naked?

What I am suggesting here is that, according to YOUR reading of a rule or an interpretation, you may be RIGHT in your own eyes (and perhaps those of a few others too), but totally WRONG in FACT, as well as in the eyes of the majority or even in the eyes of a minority IF they are the true experts. TRUTH as you perceive it, Moose, is not necessarily TRUTH in FACT.

If Carl Childress or Jon Bible BOTH say to me "That is the RIGHT way to apply this rule in NCAA baseball", shouldn't I say "That's good enough for me"? After all, I've never called NCAA baseball, much less the amount or the level of NCAA baseball that these gentlemen have between them. Heck, I have never even seen let alone read the NCAA rule book. Shouldn't I defer to them in those circumstances? Don't they have MORE chance of being RIGHT than I do in such matters? What's more, if they also add, "and the PBUC says this and JEA or J/R says that and they agree here too", doesn't that only strengthen their case beyond anything I can possibly PROVE to the contrary? So later on, say after calling only 3 years of NCAA D3 ball, if I now become absolutely convinced in my own mind that they're WRONG, does that now make ME RIGHT and THEM WRONG in fact? I don't think so, Moose.

I don't remember anyone here or elsewhere declaring themselves anything LIKE "Umpire royalty" or "experts". Because you perceive it to be so doesn't make it so, Moose. Perception only becomes Reality if it gains popular currency. Having only 2 or 3 agree, out of perhaps 10 times that number or more, does not constitute "popular currency" any more than it makes the 2 or 3 RIGHT and anyone else WRONG.

So, if I look at an issue and say "This is the RIGHT answer" and Carl Childress, JEA, J/R and the OBR all say I'm RIGHT, but Moose, Steve, and Peter of EWS all say I'm WRONG, who has the better chance of REALLY being RIGHT in fact?

Cheers,


[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 12:04 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
An editor at eUmpire is fond of recalling Orwelle's "Animal Farm" and making analogies. It seems appropriate when he makes analogies, and inappropriate when others do. Steve

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Peter Osborne is not an editor at eUmpire. He's not even the editor. I am the sole editor, and the references to Orwell on this Board came primarily from Osborne, not from me. I do agree with your analysis of those comments; however, I doubt you still believe them appropriate now that you know you applied them to the "wrong" person.

Since Peter's posts have been deleted, a search for "Orwell" turned up only four hits: two by you, claiming incorrectly that I reference Orwell; and two by MB.

It will come as a great surprise to most of the major critics of literature that Animal Farm is simplistic. Foreboding? yes; pessimistic? yes; right-wing? yes; terrifying, even? yes. Simplistic? never.

As J.R. Hammond wrote:

[Animal Farm is]one of those parables which embody permanent truths: a myth that will long outlast the particular historical events which form its background. Now that it is possible to view the work in context, freed of the emotional circumstances surrounding its publication, we can recognize it for what it is: a dystopia [an antiutopia, an imaginary picture of the worst possible world], a satirical commentary upon human societies which vividly recalls Swift’s... (A George Orwell Companion, 1982)

[Bfair]

Carl, I can only state that the first references I saw on the boards (not necessarily this board---as you tried to put words into "someone" else's mouth again) were, indeed, by none other than you. Might I be able to prove that at this time? Possibly, but possibly not. You see, I don't have the power to delete and retain those posts which I desire. It appears you may have access to them however. Remember, this thread was about censorship. Therefore, on this issue I can only state that which I feel occurred.

And despite your quoted review by J.R. Hammond, (in which he did not comment on the depth of the thought required to undeerstand the content) the book "Animal Farm" is, indeed, a simplistic satirical parody of the start of Communism. It is typically required reading for those ages 16 or less (at least where I went to school). It is, however, very easy to read, follow, and understand in its own entertaining way. In doing so, it highlights some issues of communist doctrine and history along with other problems occasionally encountered in other facets of life---sometimes our own. It seems an excellent analogy to some of the occurrences on eUmpire. I am certainly glad I saw you mention elsewhere to remind me of it.

BTW, the book, while recogniezed for many things, is not recognized for its "depth". It is, indeed, simplistic.

Just my opinion,

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 02:15 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
Carl, I can only state that the first references I saw on the boards (not necessarily this board---as you tried to put words into "someone" else's mouth again) were, indeed, by none other than you. Might I be able to prove that at this time? Possibly, but possibly not. You see, I don't have the power to delete and retain those posts which I desire. It appears you may have access to them however. Remember, this thread was about censorship. Therefore, on this issue I can only state that which I feel occurred.

Here is the kind of comment that does not forward a discussion. I don't have the power to delete anything. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and your ego doesn't permit you to admit it. Sad!

The first references to Animal Farm were not mine. I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of right-wing propaganda, whether in fictional form or not. It is possible you saw a post where I quoted somebody quoting Orwell: The cliche quote is "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That's a favorite of your mentor.

[Bfair]

I just find it odd you are quoting from posts which, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.

I don't believe my previous post indicated that I said you had the power to delete any posts (including your own). We all know, however, we have the power to delete our own in many areas. Correct?

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 03:51 AM]

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Peter Osborne is not an editor at eUmpire. He's not even the editor. I am the sole editor, and the references to Orwell on this Board came primarily from Osborne, not from me. I do agree with your analysis of those comments; however, I doubt you still believe them appropriate now that you know you applied them to the "wrong" person.

Since Peter's posts have been deleted, a search for "Orwell" turned up only four hits: two by you, claiming incorrectly that I reference Orwell; and two by MB.

It will come as a great surprise to most of the major critics of literature that Animal Farm is simplistic. Foreboding? yes; pessimistic? yes; right-wing? yes; terrifying, even? yes. Simplistic? never.

I see now that it is Carl that has attributed "Animal Farm" references to me. He has done so in error. I have never read nor quoted "Animal Farm". Carl, on the other hand, seems intimately familiar with the book. Since Carl is wrong, should not we apply the same judgement on him that he wants to apply to Bfair?

Peter
Member
EWS

(and back as His High Holiness)

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

I have never read nor quoted "Animal Farm". Carl, on the other hand, seems intimately familiar with the bookPeter
[/B]

Dude. .you gotta get Animal Farm and read it tonight! It's a great book (even better, its like 100 pages!!) And SO applicable to life.. even Umpiring.

In fact.. After umpire books, I'd say Animal Farm and "The E*****'s New Clothes", should be required reading.

Wow.. this is funny stuff! Who gets to be Snoball??

I hear the sheep... "Don't call it, Good! Call a Balk, Baaaaaaaaaaad!"

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

[Bradley Batt]

I think that we've exhausted this and other subjects...

Let's get back to talking baseball guys...

Thanks,
Brad