|
|
|
|
U.S. high court rejects Internet porn law
Tue Jun 29, 8:17 PM ET
Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
The U.S. Supreme Court has once again rejected an effort by the U.S. Congress to restrict access to the Internet, this time upholding an injunction that blocks enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
The justices on Tuesday sent a challenge to the law back to U.S. District Court, where the government will have to prove that COPA is the least restrictive way of protecting kids from cyber porn.
Tuesday's ruling adds another segment to the long-running debate over how to limit Internet porn without running roughshod over the First Amendment. In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, which was struck by the high court as unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. Two years later, Congress relied on the Supreme Court's opinion in that case to craft COPA, a statute that purports to require online porn companies to make sure that their users are willing adults, or else face criminal penalties.
Once again, however, the lawmakers failed to pass constitutional muster.
From the start, it was not clear what types of Web producers would fall victim to COPA's fines and jail time. Material deemed "harmful to minors" could theoretically encompass sex education, art and support sites for gay youth. Challenged by the ACLU on behalf of several parties, including PlanetOut Inc. (owner of Gay.com and PlanetOut.com), COPA was put on hold by a federal court and struck as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 2000. The appeals court ruled that the Internet was too extensive to be governed by "community standards" of obscenity.
The 3rd Circuit's ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, where the justices reversed, ruling that in some circumstances, "community standards" could indeed be applied in cyberspace. However, the high court's main objection was that the 3rd Circuit had not done its job, which was to evaluate the rationale for the lower court's injunction.
Back down went the case, and, in due time, the 3rd Circuit again ruled that the lower court was correct. The lower court had determined that COPA did not appear to be the least intrusive method available to deal with the dilemma of easy access to cyber porn. Why not encourage the use of filters at home, for example? Under First Amendment jurisprudence, the government is obliged to prove that limits on protected free speech are in essence a last resort, and the only means to satisfy a compelling state interest.
This ruling, in turn, was appealed again to the high court, which on Tuesday sided with the federal appellate panel. Now the stage is set for a retrial in district court, where the government will try and argue that COPA is the only solution that will save the children.
Tuesday's 5-4 decision was a complex one. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Thomas. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion, noting that the "community standards" argument should have settled the case to begin with.
Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor), insisting that COPA's restrictions on speech were modest burdens and that filtering software was not comparable. Finally, Justice Scalia wrote his own dissent, arguing that porn doesn't deserve any First Amendment protection at all.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*rolls eyes*
Christ, if the intent REALLY is to save the wittle children, why don't they instead work on getting GUNS out of people's homes?
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It seems to me that it is comparing porn and guns are liken to comparing rotten apples and rotten oranges.
Both rotten, yet different in their own ways.
Porn is bad for children... There can be no inteligent argument to the contrary.
The intent of the law they are trying to pass is to protect young children from indiscriminatly falling upon porn sites.
For instance....
some 6 or 7 years ago I was asked to seek information reguarding the Toledo, Ohio Zoo.... so I punched it into a search engine and there in all its glory was a site which on the opening page exhibited a female attempting to swallow a horse while it was in the throws of orgasm. This happened while my neighbor and his 3 children anxiously awaited information that would aid them in a fun day at the zoo.
This fiasco was something that I for one could have lived without. But for it to be available to open and immediate display for children to view was at best criminal. There is no need for little kids to be made aware of the games of adults.
So in essense I have to agree with the intent of the law but I also can't see how such a thing can be fully policed and inforced.
All we really can do is be faithful to the tenent that innocent children deserve ro remain so for as long as posible. It is within our power to make our little corner of the net safe and we will have to settle for that.... at least for now....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that zoophilia sites should probably not be allowed to pop up first thing when someone wants to find information about the Toledo, Ohio zoo. And, with a very simple (to use) piece of software in place, it won't. There are about a million versions of filtering software available, any one of which will prevent that sort of occurence.
However, I am less concerned with keeping children innocent than i am with the current government dimantling constitutional rights for every person in the country. The current administration is systematically attacking the constitutionally given rights of the citizens of this country every day, and this particular battle is just one very small skirmish in a much larger war. Perhaps you noticed that the Supreme Court also struck down Bush's policy of holding foreign and domestic POWs for indefinite periods of time without access to the Federal court system? This was, i think, of far more import than this internet porn case, but i have a feeling that they are 2 small battles in a much larger war.
cheers!
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
6 or seven years ago the filters were not what they are today to be sure.
As for adults rights to post, view and otherwise participate in porn sites and/or activities that is as far as I am concerned each individuals decision as adults to make.
But children are not as savy as adults and there should be protections for them. If for no other reason than the fact that they are children.
If one conflicts with the other then I believe that the proper course of action would be to opt for the safety of the children even if it inconveniences some porn advocates.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children should be protected, especially at home, but that job should belong to the parent not the government. Many parents look to the government to make this type of decision for them. It's easier to say "sorry son the government says thats a bad site, you can't go there" than it is to say "sorry son I don't think that is the kind of site you should be looking at".
I admit, I don't trust the government to make these decisions. Look who is in charge now, do you really want them deciding what is and is not available on the internet?
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Children's parents SHOULD be the ones monitoring their child's net surfing and SHOULD have filtering software installed on their computers. It should NOT be the responsibility of the government to legislate those sites it finds distasteful out of existence. I most certainly don't wat John Ashcroft deciding what I can and cannot view. If he had his way THIS site would have already been closed, at least to Americans. Protecting our rights to freedom of speech is far more important than wiping out internet porn.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Of course parents should monitor childrens meanderings on the internet. Many do in fact, but many don't as well.
It is not the content that I find objectional. Adults, as adults should have the right to peruse where they want and view what they enjoy on the internet.
It is the availability to children that I have a problem with.
For the most part, the people that raise the loudest alarm crying "government supression" and "I have a right" are the promoters and builders of porn sites.
We here all know that kids just don't need to see porn.
Thats all I am trying to say.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Government intervention is not the answer. Legislating porn sites out of business would certainly decrease the availability of porn to children. But it would also prohibit you, as an adult, from visiting such places if you chose to do so because such sites would not exist. And where would such censorship end? Certainly sites like this one would be considered pornographic by quite a few right wingnuts and would be targeted. Porn may be a pariah to society. But we just can't let the government get into the business of telling us what we can or cannot say.
Think free thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I am not saying I want the government to limit the rights of adults.
But if adults can not see their way to voluntarily protect children then it is the responsibility of the government to protect them.
I know it isn't a perfect solution. Hell, I am not saying it is any solution. What I am saying is that someone has to do it.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Message Body
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, it is NOT pornographers who are at the forefront of the free speech movement. There are far more folks like e and myself, I am sure.
Secondly, I object to your basic assumption that children are automatically harmed by porn. I don't see that at all. Most kids are hardier and more common-sensical than adults credit them for being, and are not all that fragile.
Kids need to be protected from abuse...but porn? Not necessarily.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
That is of course your opinion.
I never said that kids were harmed from porn. Now did I?
I said that kids need to be protected from having it so redily available.
I also never said that I was an advocate of curtailing or limiting the rights and priviledges associated with free speach.
I kind of look at the whole thing like this.....
If you go into an adult book store,,, there is a sign on the front of the building... "ADULT BOOKS" or something to that effect which tells the patron exactly where he is going. There is never a billboard showing all sorts of sexual activities. Once he opens the door, he is checked for appropriate age... then he is allowed to peruse the wares of the establishment....
For porn on the internet however the scenerio is a bit different....
There are explicit enticement pages made available, often without warning... and often with a barrage of pop-up pages. The age verification system is far from foolproof.
Once again let me try to explain my position... I am not against porn. I am against it being accessable so easily.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think of the porn industry.
When I open your posts I am half expecting to see an advert for dodgy videos!
It just seems a strange handle for someone to choose. How about going back to posting under your own name, Marc? Like you used to?
I agree that porn is far too visible on the internet, with links to "adult" sites routinely displayed by search engines. And don't get me started on the subject of spam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The XXX was chosen meerly as a matter of random selection.
It was the first key I hit.
No, I don't feel even remotely welcome here when I use my proper given name.
Albeit, that is not to say that I feel remotely welcome when using an alias.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That you don't feel welcome I mean.
That is so not what this place is supposed to be about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
True, it isn't.
But when I get berated for simple posting or recieve non productive evasive answers to ligitimate, even-handed questions I don't feel welcome.
Actually I feel taunted. Not a part of the whole... More the outsider looking in.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
Marc you stand heads and shoulders above many.Some of your posts are a bit hard to understand,but when you blasted Lenny out of the water,You became a giant and I very much respect your opinions.I think many of come here for some healing and companionship.I just wish that SOME would begin to heal.I have learned a lot and am trying to discipline my aggressive behavior,so I have to be careful what I say.I still become outraged when people badmouth America,But then I guess thats ok.Here in the good ol us of gay we have very big sandboxes.....sparks hehehehe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, I don't want to "blast anyone". I get no enjoyment out of confrontations. I also see no real point in keeping a scorecard. There are no winners and loosers only causes and effects.
I just want to say what I feel I have to say.
I want to see justice done (for good or bad) to those that deserve it.
I want the innocents to be left to experience life in it's own time without having to grow up too soon due to untoward influences.
I want civil answers to a civil questions.
Some believe I advocate diminishment of civil rights. Not so, I advocate protecting innocent people. Two very different things.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I have been thinking hard on how best to explain just how I faal about this dilema reguarding the rights of adults as they interact/relate to the protection of children.....
This is what I came up with and I want to know if it makes sense.
Protection of children from viewing porn is the result to a problem and the maintainance of civil rights in the process of this (pidgeon holed protection) is problematic of the method not the result. More thought needs to go into the workings of the solution not the end result (which has already been determined).
This is essentially what my position is.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody blasts anybody "out of the water" on this messageboard.
It just isn't that kind of place.
It is "A Place of Safety". Re-read what it says at the top of the page: "freedom to do anything except judge, insult anyone or flame them".
If you cannot accept these standards then you will be unwelcome here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well there is alot of judging here.
Insults are in the eye of the receiver and also subject to interpretation.
and Flaming, well that happens as well.
Make no mistake about one thing. This is a message board, nothing more.
As such it is just as unsafe as any other place on the net.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I hope that we aspire to be something better than "any other place on the net", although of course you are right that, by its very nature, nowhere on the net can be completely safe.
But I think that you rather missed my point.
You yourself have said: 'I don't want to "blast anyone". I get no enjoyment out of confrontations', and I would like to believe that we all agree with these sentiments, even if sometimes in the heat of a discussion we sometimes unwittingly flame and insult.
The point I was objecting to was Sparks' suggestion that a person who "blasts" another person on this board "becomes a giant".
The reality is that they become a pygmy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It is indeed us that make this place what it is. We for all our faults and strengths and weaknessess.
That little welcoming statement at the top of the message board is however a two edged sword. On the one hand, it proclaims that this place is safe to voice what it is that we all voice here. On the other edge however it tells unwary souls that we are to be trusted, perhaps too trusted. Which can and possibly has been used to advantage.
Giants are also made by advice wether it is good or bad. Judgements are also paramount in determining who is accepted and who is not.
A case in point. I have difficulty meeting people. I sometimes react and become violently ill from it. Once about 2 years ago I was invited into a chat with 2 or 3 people I had never chatted with previously, (not a good thing for me). now I did relatively well up until the time when the 2 people that I did know had to leave and I was left with the 2 ror 3 people I had just met. I bacame ill and had to leave for the porcelain to heave my guts out. Kevin came and took over the keyboard and said that I had to leave to take care of business and I as well as Kevy were accused of perpertrating some diabolical scheme to defrawd one individual in the chat by misrepresenting our identities.
I was wrongly judged for a reason totally beyond my control and have been at odds with this person ever since. Was this right? Well that is a matter of perspective. To those that it doesnt effect it doesnt matter to them one way or the other,,, As for those to whom it does matter,,, well it still doesnt matter. What is is.
Maybe this has no bearing on anything but it just came to mind when writing this post.
Blasting people here goes on all the time. Mostly it is very subtle and often it is clouded in other issues. But it does happen. It neither makes nor breaks people. It just is.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a parent, I agree.
My daughter doesn't surf the internet without my presence. I think when she's a little older it'll be okay to let her loose on this thing, but there are some things you just don't want a 6-yr old to see. It's not that I am 'sheltering' her by any means. She's seen porn before, and it won't be the last time. Granted, it was a mistake, and I'm sure every parent has his/her own way of explaining these things to their children.
It is the parent's responsibility to handle such matters, and I don't want to fork my responsibility over to the government. She's my child, not theirs. No one's going to tell me how to raise my kid.
"more tongue and groove than a hardwood floor"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Exactly, Parental intervention is at best impossible to impliment.
We don't see dirty magazines on open display at news stands, they are asked for by those who want to view them.
It is to me more a matter of proper presentation in the venue in which it is presented.
The technology needs to be improved to make viewing capability appropriate for all who wants to see it as well as those that do not.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
*blasting* perhaps was a poor choice of words.Perhaps *strong dose of *tough love** would have been a better choice of words..peace people. sparks;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
OK, this is not what I created this baord for. "Blasting people out of the water" and praising people for it.
You have, of course, proved that banning people is ineffective, Mr Bryce. And you subtly make it challenging to enforce a ban because you are so sweet and kind with one hand while punching hard with the other.
Most people here have had the ability to see you and ignore you.
You are not welcome here. You were not welcome here when you started name calling, and you are not welcome here now.
In fact you are precisely what you were, and each time you resurface you will go. You remain an aggressive poster, as usual tinged with good sense and decency. You have not learned a thing since your ban. All you have done is sneaked around it.
I banned you for very good reasons. Just stay away.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I missed the window of having a child of very young years with the internet available. Even so I've been online I suppose for about 6 years, and my son was 13 or so when I got online first.
Probably 13 is more impressionable than 6. At 13 one makes sense of what one sees. At 6 images may be explained away quite easily. (authority for this is my wife, who teaches this age group).
So I was faced with making a decision about the internet and porn.
I chose physical presence until I became confortable with my son;s obviuous surfing habits. I discussed the fact that pron existed and made it challenging by saying that he was "Welcome to look at it" and that "Anything that he found odd or disgusting he was welcome to ask about".
I'm not saying that is a good method, it was just the one I chose. Now he happily visits str8 sites and I happily visit gay ones. His morality is actually pretty fierce over sexual matters, and we are able to discuss thinsg openly.
I chose not to go the software route. At 6 one might.
For example a uk bank is "First Direct". "Fistdirect" is an easy typo to make. So parental awareness while our kids grow is a useful thing. Prohibition is probabaly less sueful. Forbidden fruit.
I have not read this whole thread. Forgive me if I am off at a tangent.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... with an apology having been immediately forthcoming, and extended, when the "true" facts of the situation you describe, and I quote here, were made known to me:
"A case in point. I have difficulty meeting people. I sometimes react and become violently ill from it. Once about 2 years ago I was invited into a chat with 2 or 3 people I had never chatted with previously, (not a good thing for me). Now I did relatively well up until the time when the 2 people that I did know had to leave and I was left with the 2 or 3 people I had just met. I became ill and had to leave for the porcelain to heave my guts out. Kevin came and took over the keyboard and said that I had to leave to take care of business and I as well as Kevy were accused of perpetrating some diabolical scheme to defraud one individual in the chat by misrepresenting our identities.
I was wrongly judged for a reason totally beyond my control and have been at odds with this person ever since. Was this right? Well that is a matter of perspective. To those that it doesn't effect it doesn't matter to them one way or the other ... as for those to whom it does matter ... well it still doesn't matter. What is is."
To be absolutely fair about this, before I levied the charge after I became aware it was no longer you using your User I. D., and I queried others, I was summarily told that I shouldn't be surprised, as they too had fallen victim to this same behaviour by you (and I assume Kevin) on other occasions. Neither those whom I had questioned, nor I, were previously aware of your difficulties in dealing with people, nor of the consequences that ensued in your doing so; and once this situation was made known to me, you received my apology.
Misrepresentation through User I. D. is unfortunately a fact of Internet life, being carried out by people of all walks of life many hundreds of thousands of instances daily; but, that doesn't make me, or anyone else, have to either tolerate, or sanction, this behaviour when encountered. Whilst I employ the device of a "handle", at A Place of Safety and elsewhere that being "thegaydeceiver", my true identity is never, nor has it ever been withheld, with one exception, known only to the Board owner here, and used nowhere else. This same situation applies to two other "handles" I currently employ elsewhere, and two others since abandoned.
An individual's choice in their use of a "handle", or whether they shield their identity in doing so, doesn't disturb me; but regardless of whether their true identity (read "real" name, location, whatever) is known behind their handle (as is the case in my use of them), or not, I expect, NO MAKE THAT STRONGER, I demand these same people I deal with, using whatever handle they choose, be who they say they are, vis à vis, if they declare themselves to be aged-18 - then they be aged-18, if they declare themselves to be single never married - then they better be single never married ... and by extension ... all other information they supply through the course of that contact should be equally truthful; and no I'm not asking for personal identifiable details, but that they not misrepresent the essence of who they are. We should all be able to expect that much from our Internet contacts, just as we would expect these same privileges in the real World.
Your choice of handle at the time of the occurrence related here left little doubt as to whom you said you were, that was not the issue, nor was an issue made of the details shared during the course of that contact; what was at issue was Kevin having assumed your identity for some period of time before the rest of us were aware you were not in fact there any more, and the person we thought we had then been speaking with was NOT YOU. The question then had arisen not whether we had been speaking with you at all, although that could have been a very real possibility, but rather for how long had Kevin assumed your identity during the conversation, and then most importantly why. It was some days later that I was supplied with the facts of this situation, and as they say the rest is history.
You and I, and Kevin and I, have subsequently shared numerous conversations, and it would be my hope that should the need ever again arise that either you, or Kevin, could feel that your contacting me would be well, and graciously, received regardless of the motivation behind your making that contact.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Those words meant alot to me.
Thanks,
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... this degenerates into another slinging-match, let me iterate one last time:
I'm delighted to see you return here, as I've previously stated in a recent thread elsewhere. I personally feel a travesty had been committed when you felt impelled to withdraw your participation here; that I might have been a party to that occurrence shames me.
You are here. I no longer am. Whatever our differences, let them go ... DO NOT continue to air them in this venue. If you have issues, you (amongst very few here) know where to find me. You have my telephone number - use it if you must; but leave well enough alone regarding further discussion of all that ails yours and mine relationship here at A Place of Safety.
I am quick to anger ... just ask either of my two sons; and prone to dance upon the ceiling for a few minutes venting that anger; but once vented, I have always been willing to sit and achieve resolution to whatever circumstances caused that anger in the first place. Once resolution is effected, I live by that decision. I hold no grudges ... ever, for any reason. Period. Once welcomed into my home, be that physically, or through the realm of wherever I currently reside on-line, and individual always remains welcome in that home, this being regardless of where I may have first befriended them. Always.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who is mr. bryce and what are his aliases?
if it's none of my business, i understand... just curious about the matter.
"more tongue and groove than a hardwood floor"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Robert is currently the only banned member of these forums that I know of. Although Timmy tries to be accepting of everyone and take into account their need, Rob responded to a lot of posts in an extremely agressive and inflamatory way that did nothing at all to help the mood of the board and did quite a bit to detract from it, upsetting quite a number of people along the way.
Timmy attempted to give him chances, perhaps more chance than most of the rest of us would allow him, but he continued to make a mockery of the members of this board and did not respect Timmy's position as board owner and moderator so in the end he was removed.
For a little while now he has returned under the name of "sparks" where he has been creating sparks of his own, for the most part being civil but occasionally trying to set off those few small embers that could turn this place nasty for a while. You can read his recent comments on the front page and get an inclination of why he was banned. He used to go by a couple of other names including "rob" and I think maybe his full name, although I'm not sure. Umm... I'm sure others can give you a more full explanation than that.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank u saben, for explaining that further. sounds to me like this guy is striving for any kind of attention he can get-- whether it be positive or negative.
i say this as a by-stander: dont let it get to you guys. there will be people like that, he's not the last. the only thing you can do at times is push that imaginary ignore button, find some humor in the situation, and put your mind at ease. you don't have to put up with anything you don't want to-- remember that. it's important. if someone says something that's just not quite right, (forgive me if this sounds a bit harsh, but i don't know how to say it any better) it's basically your fault that you let it upset you. shrug your shoulders and go about your way. it's a passive way to deal with the negatives of life, and i'm not saying to do this with everything that's negative, because there are times when you need to fight back... it's just that sometimes a smile will get to someone more than trying to "hurt them back."
as i said before, i say this as someone on the outside looking in. i don't know all the details, and i'm not trying to be quick to tell everyone how to handle it. it's a suggestion, and it's not meant to offend anyone.
do me a favor: stand up (you better do it to, i promise this will make your day better), give yourself a hug!!!! see? aren't you smiling? 
rodney
"more tongue and groove than a hardwood floor"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I tried long and hard to accommodate this rather unfortunate gentleman and his needs into our community here. I tried long after perhaps wiser people said to me "Give up", but I am rather like Don Quixote with windmills.
Regrettably he became increasingly abusive, and, after many warnings, disregarded the final one, and was banned. He then re-arrived multiple times and is the reason the forum requires a login.
"Sparks" was an alias I suspected for some time. However I needed to be sure. Now I am sure.
I do not take the decision to ban someone idly. I don't even take it "for the good of the community". I take it when that person refuses to listen and learn and is abusive and purposefully disruptive.
I hated banning him. I wish he had not returned to make me have to raise this topic again
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's a little something that always helps me... (i'm a huge music geeker, so you'll probably see alot of these from time to time) i wont confuse you all with names, let's just say this one is a blind melon song:
"I don't feel the suns comin' out today
its staying in, its gonna find another way.
As I sit here in this misery, I don't
think I'll ever see the sun from here.
And oh as I fade away,
they'll all look at me and say, and they'll say,
Hey look at him! I'll never live that way.
But that's okay
they're just afraid to change.
When you feel your life ain't worth living
you've got to stand up and
take a look around you then a look way up to the sky.
And when your deepest thoughts are broken,
keep on dreaming boy, cause when you stop dreamin' it's time to die.
And as we all play parts of tomorrow,
some ways will work and other ways we'll play.
But I know we all can't stay here forever,
so I want to write my words on the face of today.
and then they'll paint it
And oh as I fade away,
they'll all look at me and they'll say,
Hey look at him and where he is these days.
When life is hard, you have to change."
i know it may not have a lick to do with our 'subject' here, but when i hear it or read it, it always makes me think... and then i remember who i am, where i came from, and why i live my life the way i do now. i hope u can find some 'peace of mind' with it.
rodney
"more tongue and groove than a hardwood floor"
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Encouraging news from the US Supreme Court...mostly 
Thanks, e, for stating this so well. I agree completely! 
You just don't get it, do you? 
Yes Marc ... you were wrongly judged ... 
I dont understand.... 
Explanation 
