I don’t think I said it was clearly insulting, but now that you mention it, yeah it clearly is:
if you don’t think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort, then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly and get back to me about it.
Breaking it down, we have:
if you don’t think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort = If I’m that stupid
then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly = I should be punished for being stupid.
and get back to me about it = so he can gloat.
If I am that stupid, then I should get hurt because of my stupidity and display my crippled self before his ego.
I’d prefer he simply call me stupid than make such a drama out of it, which is far more insulting. How do you see it differently?
I’m not avoiding anything. What obligations of patrons?
Nothing here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693526
Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693656
He now has bunch of obligations placed on him. At the same time, those who appear on the webcam, seem to have no obligations. They have a lot of new rights.
I said no new rights, but the same old rights of free speech.
Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693786
So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?
And that is where we are now. What obligations would the patrons have because the pub owner decided to do something? If the pub owner makes a choice, the obligations are on him; not the patrons.
Your accusation that I’m avoiding addressing your point smells of malicious intent to discredit me. Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. But it’s ok… I’m not going to make a big deal out of it; just saying.
I don’t want to say anything to offend you because I enjoy our conversations. I’m just asking that you not accuse me of immoral activity without evidence.
You see? This is how we handle things without moderators. I say “here is how you’re coming across” and you say “oh I didn’t mean it like that” and we go on. We come to a mutual understanding of each other’s issues and consequently make different choices in future interactions.
Yup
Why?
I told you the situation. Schiff and other invitees were arguing on CNBC’s video tape. It is precisely the same as you and I arguing on Carleas’ forum. Exactly the same. So it boils down to: Does Carleas have the right to prevent you from displaying your conversation with me on another medium? It’s a simple question.
Of course, to my knowledge, Schiff has never addressed his own censorship because, presumably, it would undermine his philosophy of sucking the capitalist dong.