I am a friend of Dark Shadows. i think i need an explanation as to why her account is all of a sudden "terminated".
I need a couple of answers:
1. Was her account permanently deleted?
2. Why weren’t other users who enjoy her posts asked if they would like her to stay?
3. Also, what reasons can you cite, for such an act? Was it so difficult to fathom truth?
IS it that you like to shy away from the truth? These are facts, Barry. So what was the big problem? She never abused this cite or misbehaved with anyone, she just tried to give explanations and yes, she stood her ground, like everyone else here. Kat, for example, is so prejudiced against indigenous peoples that she chose to write hateful posts about them. When she asked that you to put to an end to this, you ignored her.
What kind of a judgment is it to terminate a person who speaks her mind? Is this not erasing the right that the first amendment gives us? This is unfair censorship and not a progressive way to accomplish what you set out to do, provide a forum for all people regardless of their race, religion or viewpoint. Who is the one being racist here? The one who is prejudiced.
You sent her an email that insulted Native Americans and their right to speak up about what was offensive generalizing their behavior. Is this not racist?
someguy
06-17-2010, 07:10 PM
I am a friend of Dark Shadows. i think i need an explanation as to why her account is all of a sudden "terminated".
I need a couple of answers:
1. Was her account permanently deleted?
2. Why weren’t other users who enjoy her posts asked if they would like her to stay?
3. Also, what reasons can you cite, for such an act? Was it so difficult to fathom truth?
IS it that you like to shy away from the truth? These are facts, Barry. So what was the big problem? She never abused this cite or misbehaved with anyone, she just tried to give explanations and yes, she stood her ground, like everyone else here. Kat, for example, is so prejudiced against indigenous peoples that she chose to write hateful posts about them. When she asked that you to put to an end to this, you ignored her.
What kind of a judgment is it to terminate a person who speaks her mind? Is this not erasing the right that the first amendment gives us? This is unfair censorship and not a progressive way to accomplish what you set out to do, provide a forum for all people regardless of their race, religion or viewpoint. Who is the one being racist here? The one who is prejudiced.
You sent her an email that insulted Native Americans and their right to speak up about what was offensive generalizing their behavior. Is this not racist?
You just joined today and know all about Dark Shadows previous posts on waccobb, how could this be so? Maybe you wouldn't mind answering that question.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 07:11 PM
I have been informed by those who are watching this site and who are not happy about what has been happening here.
You just joined today and know all about Dark Shadows previous posts on waccobb, how could this be so? Maybe you wouldn't mind answering that question.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 07:16 PM
How many people believe that Barry was right to terminate membership of people who have a viewpoint that is different than that of the main stream?
I have been informed by those who are watching this site and who are not happy about what has been happening here.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 07:23 PM
I have been informed by those who are watching this site and who are not happy about what has been happening here.
Oh please, get over yourself. You were abrasive and obnoxious and apparently got banned for it. You don't have any 'right' to be a jerk.
As you said, 'why is it so difficult to fathom truth'?
As for free speech rights, you have the right to start your own forum and be as mean and nasty as you want, but you have no 'right' to inflict yourself on others where ever you want.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 07:28 PM
Me? I think you are talking to the wrong person. Why not direct your comments to the person who is being judged? Or are you afraid to?
Abrasive? Obnoxious? I don't think so. She writes of truth, and writes a good story if you ask me.
Oh please, get over yourself. You were abrasive and obnoxious and got banned. You don't have any 'right' to be a jerk.
As you said, 'why is it so difficult to fathom truth'?
As for free speech rights, you have the right to start your own forum and be as mean and nasty as you want, but you have no 'right' to inflict yourself on others where ever you want.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 07:35 PM
Your naivety about the internet is showing.
Me? I think you are talking to the wrong person. Why not direct your comments to the person who is being judged? Or are you afraid to?
Abrasive? Obnoxious? I don't think so. She writes of truth, and writes a good story if you ask me.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 07:47 PM
Pray tell, what do you mean BabelTower?
Your naivety about the internet is showing.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 08:17 PM
Pray tell, what do you mean BabelTower?
This is not a free speech or first amendment rights issue. This same argument is being presented, ad nauseum, all over the web, in virtually every moderated forum, in defense of antagonistic and obnoxious behavior.
You may like how 'Dark Shadows' treats other people, but it's not really relevant (or empathetic).
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 08:18 PM
There are many examples of noble and lower class participation in areas such as the coffeehouses and the freemasonic lodges, demonstrating that the bourgeois-era public sphere was enriched by cross-class influences. A rough depiction of the public sphere as independent and critical of the state is contradicted by the diverse cases of government-sponsored public institutions and government participation in debate, along with the cases of private individuals using public venues to promote the status quo.
How public was the public sphere?
The word “public” implies the highest level of inclusivity – the public sphere by definition should be open to all. However, as the analysis of many “public” institutions of the Enlightenment will show, this sphere was only public to relative degrees. Indeed, as Roger Chartier emphasizes, Enlightenment thinkers frequently contrasted their conception of the “public” with that of the people: Chartier cites Condorcet (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Condorcet), who contrasted “opinion” with populace; Marmontel (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Marmontel) with “the opinion of men of letters” versus “the opinion of the multitude”; and d’Alembert (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/D%E2%80%99Alembert), who contrasted the “truly enlightened public with “the blind and noisy multitude”. As Mona Ozouf underlines, public opinion was defined in opposition to the opinion of the greater population.<SUP id=cite_ref-15 class=reference>[16] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-15)</SUP> While the nature of public opinion during the Enlightenment is as difficult to define as it is today, it is nonetheless clear that the body that held it (i.e. the public sphere) was exclusive rather than inclusive. This observation will become more apparent during the descriptions of the institutions of the public sphere, most of which excluded both women and the lower classes.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 08:21 PM
Public institutions
Note: This list is by no means exhaustive. The general requirements for a public institution were the following:
It had to be relatively inclusive (i.e. Public). Most of the institutions listed either were egalitarian or created hierarchies that contrasted with social hierarchies.
It had to participate in the “public” spread of information, often with normative (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Normative) intentions.
It had to allow for potentially critical thought.For example, using these standards, the London debating societies were part of the public sphere, because they were inclusive and egalitarian, they spread information, and they promoted critical thought.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 08:26 PM
The internet is the public sphere, so you are free to start your own forum, but you are not free to inflict yourself on any other forum as you see fit. Exactly in the same way any coffeehouse or lodge or public transportation has the right to eject obnoxious customers, moderators have the right to ban people.
There are many examples of noble and lower class participation in areas such as the coffeehouses and the freemasonic lodges, demonstrating that the bourgeois-era public sphere was enriched by cross-class influences. A rough depiction of the public sphere as independent and critical of the state is contradicted by the diverse cases of government-sponsored public institutions and government participation in debate, along with the cases of private individuals using public venues to promote the status quo.
How public was the public sphere?
The word “public” implies the highest level of inclusivity – the public sphere by definition should be open to all. However, as the analysis of many “public” institutions of the Enlightenment will show, this sphere was only public to relative degrees. Indeed, as Roger Chartier emphasizes, Enlightenment thinkers frequently contrasted their conception of the “public” with that of the people: Chartier cites Condorcet (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Condorcet), who contrasted “opinion” with populace; Marmontel (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Marmontel) with “the opinion of men of letters” versus “the opinion of the multitude”; and d’Alembert (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/D%E2%80%99Alembert), who contrasted the “truly enlightened public with “the blind and noisy multitude”. As Mona Ozouf underlines, public opinion was defined in opposition to the opinion of the greater population.<SUP id=cite_ref-15 class=reference>[16] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-15)</SUP> While the nature of public opinion during the Enlightenment is as difficult to define as it is today, it is nonetheless clear that the body that held it (i.e. the public sphere) was exclusive rather than inclusive. This observation will become more apparent during the descriptions of the institutions of the public sphere, most of which excluded both women and the lower classes.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 08:27 PM
Is it not enlightenment that we are all after, or am I mistaken?
The first English coffeehouse, named Angel, was established in Oxford, by a certain Jewish entrepreneur named Jacob, in 1650. Brian Cowan argues that Oxford coffeehouses developed into "penny universities (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Penny_universities)", offering a locus of learning that was less formal than structured institutions. These penny universities occupied a significant position in Oxford academic life, as they were frequented by virtuosi, who conducted their research on the premises. According to Cowan, "the coffeehouse was a place for like-minded scholars to congregate, to read, as well as learn from and to debate with each other, but was emphatically not a university institution, and the discourse there was of a far different order than any university tutorial.”<SUP id=cite_ref-56 class=reference>[57] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-56)</SUP>
Although coffee had been known in France since the 1640s, it was Francesco Procopio dei Coltelli (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Francesco_Procopio_dei_Coltelli) – François Procope – who established the first café in Paris, the Café Procope (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Procope), in 1686. Although it took coffee a while to become popular, by the 1720s there were around 400 cafés in the city. The Café Procope in particular became a centre of Enlightenment, welcoming such names as Voltaire (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Voltaire) and Rousseau (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Rousseau), and later on, Marat (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Marat), Hébert (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/H%C3%A9bert) and Camille Desmoulins (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Camille_Desmoulins) during the Revolution. The Café Procope was also where Diderot (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Diderot) and D’Alembert (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/D%E2%80%99Alembert) decided to create the Encyclopédie (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die).<SUP id=cite_ref-57 class=reference>[58] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-57)</SUP>
Like the coffeehouse in England, the café in France was a varied affaire. If the Café Procope represented a high class institution, on the end of the spectrum, Louis Sebastien Mercier (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Louis_Sebastien_Mercier) described an affiliation between cafés and prostitution: using prostitutes, army recruiters would lure young unsuspecting men into cafés, where they would then be forced or otherwise tricked into joining up.<SUP id=cite_ref-58 class=reference>[59] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-58)</SUP> The general trend in Parisian cafés across the eighteenth century was popularization, helped by lower coffee prices.<SUP id=cite_ref-59 class=reference>[60] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-59)</SUP> Indeed, Mercier wrote towards the end of the eighteenth century that “it is no longer decent to stay in a café, because it announces a dearth of acquaintances and an absolute void of good society”, although he was probably referring to the majority of cafés rather than every café.<SUP id=cite_ref-60 class=reference>[61] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-60)</SUP>
The cafés earned their place in the public sphere due to the conversation that took place within them. Robert Darnton (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Robert_Darnton) in particular has studied Parisian café conversation in great detail. He describes how the cafés were one of the various “nerve centers” for bruits publics, public noise or rumour. These bruits were allegedly a much better source of information than were the actual newspapers available at the time.<SUP id=cite_ref-61 class=reference>[62] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#cite_note-61)</SUP>
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 08:30 PM
Then admit BABEL TOWER that this site is an exclusive community!
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 08:34 PM
Then admit BABEL TOWER that this site is an exclusive community!
If you consider a public train or a bus or a tavern or a town square an 'exclusive community' because you are obliged not to be too obnoxious or you'll get ejected, then yes, I suppose it is.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 08:39 PM
When the rules are made by one person or only a small group of people, it is a dictatorship - who is saying that words of truth are obnoxious? You, Barry?
The first century Jewish interpretation, as found in Flavius Josephus (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Flavius_Josephus), explains the construction of the tower of Babel as a hubristic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Hubris) act of defiance against God ordered by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Nimrod_(Bible)).
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 08:46 PM
You are free to start your own forum and be as obnoxious as you like. You are not free to inflict your narcissistic hatred willy nilly in the rest of the public or private world. Surely this is not news to you, I've a feeling you've been experiencing this all your life.
When the rules are made by one person or only a small group of people, it is a dictatorship - who is saying that words of truth are obnoxious? You, Barry?
The first century Jewish interpretation, as found in Flavius Josephus (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Flavius_Josephus), explains the construction of the tower of Babel as a hubristic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Hubris) act of defiance against God ordered by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Nimrod_(Bible)).
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 09:42 PM
I've only experienced such extreme hatred towards other races and people of color on this site.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 09:44 PM
It looks like our dear master prefers bathroom humor to that of enlightened truths.
farting in public?
Some trolls invaded this thread (and a few others) recently. They and their posts have been removed from the system.
I'm sorry to those of you who had to witness this.
I invite you to report any post that you feel that is inappropriate by using the https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/ReportPost.png icon that is above all posts on the bulletin board.
Barry
Hotspring 44
06-17-2010, 10:33 PM
:hello:Excuse me; do you really mean that literally, in your whole life's experience?:hmmm:... ...I just find that unbelievable!
:2cents:If so, you must have experienced a very sheltered life or have a lapse in memory for some reason or another.
I've only experienced such extreme hatred towards other races and people of color on this site.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-17-2010, 10:40 PM
:hello:Excuse me; do you really mean that literally, in your whole life's experience?:hmmm:... ...I just find that unbelievable!
:2cents:If so, you must have experienced a very sheltered life or have a lapse in memory for some reason or another.
And Dark Shadows... er.. I mean 'fabulous eyes' only joined a few hours ago
Zeno Swijtink
06-17-2010, 10:52 PM
I propose a new rule for this community BB: that nobody can post within 2 days of registering their screen name.
Some trolls invaded this thread (and a few others) recently. They and their posts have been removed from the system.
I'm sorry to those of you who had to witness this.
I invite you to report any post that you feel that is inappropriate by using the https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/ReportPost.png icon that is above all posts on the bulletin board.
Barry
Barry
06-17-2010, 11:46 PM
Then admit BABEL TOWER that this site is an exclusive community!
I admit it! This site is exclusive! It's not for everybody. Your First "Ammendment" right of Free "Speach" does not apply here.
(Sorry folks, I know I'm the last person that should be ridiculing anybody about typos and misspellings, but I couldn't resist!)
Dark Shadows is clearly involved with you, Fabulous Eyes, and our other recent trolls, MalibuJim and Cowabunga. Her posts often antagonistic and allege racism, seeing it around each bend, just like you have FE, on this thread. All in all she is not a positive contribution to our community.
You too, FE, will be banned, as well as any additional sockpuppets of yours.
fabulous eyes
06-17-2010, 11:59 PM
You may say I'm a dreamer...
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
I admit it! This site is exclusive! It's not for everybody. Your First "Ammendment" right of Free "Speach" does not apply here.
(Sorry folks, I know I'm the last person that should be ridiculing anybody about typos and misspellings, but I couldn't resist!)
Dark Shadows is clearly involved with you, Fabulous Eyes, and our other recent trolls, MalibuJim and Cowabunga. Her posts often antagonistic and allege racism, seeing it around each bend, just like you have FE, on this thread. All in all she is not a positive contribution to our community.
You too, FE, will be banned, as well as any additional sockpuppets of yours.
CallieRD
06-18-2010, 12:24 AM
I dare you to kick me off as well for what I have to say about this. And I've been around for two years without saying anything:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Autocracy) form of government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Form_of_government) in which the government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Government) is ruled by an individual, the dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Dictator). It has three possible meanings:
A Roman dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_dictator) was a political office (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Political_office) of the Roman Republic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Republic). Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Law) and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Sulla) and the Roman Emperors (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Emperor) exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
A government controlled by one person or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests with one person. Such power is often obtained forcibly. A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Constitution), or other social and political factors within the state.Among the most extreme examples of dictatorship in recent history and modern times are Nazi Germany (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Nazi_Germany) and North Korea (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/North_Korea), respectively.<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2010">[citation needed (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP>
In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Hereditary_dictatorship) remained a relatively common phenomenon.
For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Authoritarianism)), while totalitarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Totalitarianism) describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Democracy) (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)) (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
I admit it! This site is exclusive! It's not for everybody. Your First "Ammendment" right of Free "Speach" does not apply here.
(Sorry folks, I know I'm the last person that should be ridiculing anybody about typos and misspellings, but I couldn't resist!)
Dark Shadows is clearly involved with you, Fabulous Eyes, and our other recent trolls, MalibuJim and Cowabunga. Her posts often antagonistic and allege racism, seeing it around each bend, just like you have FE, on this thread. All in all she is not a positive contribution to our community.
You too, FE, will be banned, as well as any additional sockpuppets of yours.
CallieRD
06-18-2010, 12:31 AM
Babel Tower joined on June 16th, but he or she was not thrown off this site. What gives?
I propose a new rule for this community BB: that nobody can post within 2 days of registering their screen name.
Hotspring 44
06-18-2010, 01:22 AM
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Other than your so-called dare, and your statement that you have been around for two years without saying anything; other than copying and pasting something from Wikipedia, (if we are to take your word for it, which I don't at this point in time see any reason not to) you still have said essentially, nothing.:Shhh:<o:p></o:p>
I dare you to kick me off as well for what I have to say about this. And I've been around for two years without saying anything:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Autocracy) form of government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Form_of_government) in which the government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Government) is ruled by an individual, the dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Dictator). It has three possible meanings:
A Roman dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_dictator) was a political office (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Political_office) of the Roman Republic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Republic). Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Law) and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Sulla) and the Roman Emperors (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Emperor) exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
A government controlled by one person or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests with one person. Such power is often obtained forcibly. A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Constitution), or other social and political factors within the state.Among the most extreme examples of dictatorship in recent history and modern times are Nazi Germany (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Nazi_Germany) and North Korea (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/North_Korea), respectively.<sup style="white-space: nowrap;" class="Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2010">[[I]citation needed (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</sup>
In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Hereditary_dictatorship) remained a relatively common phenomenon.
For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Authoritarianism)), while totalitarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Totalitarianism) describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Democracy) (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Pluralism_%28political_philosophy%29) (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
BabelTower99thFloor
06-18-2010, 02:49 AM
Unlike the people born into North Korea or Nazi Germany, you voluntarily joined this bulletin board and you are free to leave at any time.
Like virtually every business or public space in America, you are not free to flaunt the rules you agreed to abide by when you voluntarily entered.
I dare you to kick me off as well for what I have to say about this. And I've been around for two years without saying anything:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Autocracy) form of government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Form_of_government) in which the government (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Government) is ruled by an individual, the dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Dictator). It has three possible meanings:
A Roman dictator (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_dictator) was a political office (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Political_office) of the Roman Republic (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Republic). Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Law) and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Sulla) and the Roman Emperors (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Roman_Emperor) exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
A government controlled by one person or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests with one person. Such power is often obtained forcibly. A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Constitution), or other social and political factors within the state.Among the most extreme examples of dictatorship in recent history and modern times are Nazi Germany (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Nazi_Germany) and North Korea (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/North_Korea), respectively.<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2010">[citation needed (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP>
In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Hereditary_dictatorship) remained a relatively common phenomenon.
For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Authoritarianism)), while totalitarianism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Totalitarianism) describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Democracy) (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (https://www.waccobb.net/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)) (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
LenInSebastopol
06-18-2010, 05:41 AM
"enlightened truths"?
Bwahahahah!
Naw, children misbehaving while folks are concentrating on adult matters has never really been appreciated.
We know progressives tolerate more than most, but not everything. And go ahead, fart in public....we care so deeply! Oh, wait...I am wrong again.
It looks like our dear master prefers bathroom humor to that of enlightened truths. farting in public?
LenInSebastopol
06-18-2010, 06:26 AM
Wow.
What a storm of ....protest? I responded to one simple post and I find it is posted HERE!
F.E., after reading your stuff I must congratulate you on your Control + C, Control + V, but I notice none answered your O.P below, so....
I am a friend of Dark Shadows. i think i need an explanation as to why her account is all of a sudden "terminated".
I need a couple of answers:
1. Was her account permanently deleted?
No, you may think you need an explanation, and I sympathize with your needs, but the 'need' you feel is simply yours: you don't deserve one on a 'just because I'm a friend' basis. Not all our needs are met in this wide world. Sorry, but it is one of those truths. Why would one have to answer for another persons needs? I don't see that written in the rules of this or most forums, which basically is a private concern of the one that pays to run this puppy.
2. Why weren’t other users who enjoy her posts asked if they would like her to stay?
That's another tough question. Consider democracy and the complications it brings. I suppose that is why this is not a democratic country, at its base. It would generate more smoke than light. In the end someone must make a decision, and I suppose that someone is the one that pays the bills; it does not need to be that way, but please, come up with another as I am all ears, mostly.
There are many internet jokes about how many forum posters does it take to change a light bulb? Google that and you may find the answer to your question above.
3. Also, what reasons can you cite, for such an act? Was it so difficult to fathom truth? IS it that you like to shy away from the truth? These are facts, Barry. So what was the big problem?
Barry needs no help from me, but I need help in understanding your question! For example how Barry, or you, give me a reason for liking strawberry more than chocolate? I mean give me the truth! of that answer! After all these years of trying to attain enlightment of the truth, 'Because I do' is the only thing this simpleton can come up with. It's not being 'shy', just truthful. And being a simpleton, I don't know how I can I 'fathom the truth'?
Please tell me how you do it? I words? or pictures?
You mention, 'these are the facts' yet I missed "these" parts. What are the facts? That DS is kicked off? Yes. Your questions are not 'facts' so I miss them. Or DS posts are 'the facts'? Wow....I read them and still miss your question, and DS facts she posted. Seemed as opinions to me....
She never abused this cite or misbehaved with anyone, she just tried to give explanations and yes, she stood her ground, like everyone else here. Kat, for example, is so prejudiced against indigenous peoples that she chose to write hateful posts about them. When she asked that you to put to an end to this, you ignored her.
I take umbrage here. I've abused this cite much more than DS...ask anyone here, and yet I have not been kicked off. How dare you say she's abused this forum more than me! And that was even after I read the ground rules for this forum!
As for Kat....well, being a good chuncky fellow of 'indigenous peoples' I am sorry, as I've missed the boat on Kat's prejudice. The posts I've read by Kat did give a flavorful opinion, but then that is why I am here, however the 'hate boat' departed and I'm left on shore because when DS opined that Kat was 'prejudice' I did not find that to be a 'fact' or a 'truth'. Isn't democracy difficult?
What kind of a judgment is it to terminate a person who speaks her mind? Is this not erasing the right that the first amendment gives us? This is unfair censorship and not a progressive way to accomplish what you set out to do, provide a forum for all people regardless of their race, religion or viewpoint. Who is the one being racist here? The one who is prejudiced.
We agree here. But the impetus that got me to respond to your post is the incorrect notion that the First Amendment gives folks a right.....that right is applied only to governments, not to forums! Unless Barry is running a gov't forum...then you can petition the same gov't to close Barry's forum down. Or if you can prove Barry is using federal funding then you can tie him up in court forEVER...wouldn't that be cool? Know what I mean, drama queen? But I suppose "censorship" seems always unfair, in a democracy, as someone in the crowd, is always aced out from yelling their piece, but again that only applies to gov'ts and their agents, and even then only under certain conditions....gadz this 'controlled liberty' thingy is complicated!
And you are right: being able to judge before any singular issue occurs is "pre-judged"......so, want to have lunch with me? We can eat, say, a telephone pole, or some one else's arm. And if you say 'no' then you have pre-judged what is good to eat. How dare you! Personally speaking, we need more prejudiced folks around here.
You sent her an email that insulted Native Americans and their right to speak up about what was offensive generalizing their behavior. Is this not racist?
I missed that one, I guess. Curious people want to know!
And will get over it if I don't.
Got to run....love to chat...but I got to have a life. Go find yours.