What did thought_stazi say?

But what did stazi say that was so hurtful or wrong? Besides how can these moderators be trusted, for all we know they can delete any post if they feel like it.

The Moderators aren't here to explain to other people who didn't see the post in the first place what was said or basically we wouldn't have the trust and confidence of the rest of the members because we would be doing the same thing the deleted post did, which is to publicly humiliate a member.

These forums are privately owned by CNET and are here as a free service to the members. CNET has its own rules (look to the link at the left for the link to them under Forum Policies)and they are linked to on every page within CNET you go to. All members agree to them as they register.

Members seek out CNET....it's not the other way around. If you ASK to enter, aren't you also saying that you will behave and be respectful to others who have also asked to be here?

If you don't like their rules of conduct, you are free to go to any one of the thousands of other forums available on the net instead....but every forum has its own set of rules that you will need to agree with first.

Think of the forums as your mother's kitchen....would you take kindly to an invited guest insulting another just because they think they can?

Moderators are here to keep the peace and ensure that the members are treated with respect and civility. That's not censorship....

TONI

if it is possible to create a new identity and start posting again?

I'm sure this little nugget of rationalization would be one of those I'd have to write down so I could laugh and weep about it later.

Moderators are here to keep the peace and ensure that the members are treated with respect and civility. That's not censorship....

Riddle me this then Batman... If enforcing rules about what people can and cannot say isn't censorship, what is it?

I mean, if I go out and say you can't say one of George Carlin's seven words on television, that's censorship. If I say you can't write a book on a particular subject, that's censorship. How is any of that any different from saying you can say anything you want about a person, so long as it isn't negative? Tell me exactly how that isn't censorship. It looks like censorship, sounds like censorship... Where's the disconnect?

In early Nazi Germany, many of the same sort of arguments were used against the Jewish people.

That's what fascists always say when they start attacking people's freedoms. And I'm deeply saddened that you have allowed yourself to think that way. You're willingly giving away your freedoms little by little, and I'm sure the people who faught and died in the war of independence are half-way to china from all the spinning they're doing in their graves from the things people like you say and do.

you can call people all sort of things ? Do what you like to them ? Take their property ? Shoot them ?.....all in the name of you having the freedom to do what you like ? So you are saying the Nazis had the freedom to do what they did ?

Politeness leads to all kinds of flowery language and euphamisms out the wazoo.

What you call efficiency, I would call a slow and gradual convolution. We have to tip-toe around all kinds of subject because someone, somewhere, might somehow be offended in some way. So, instead of being able to state something bluntly, that may be an unpleasant fact, I have to spend a great deal of time trying to find a way to soften the blow. That means what I could have said in one or two sentences, which has the potential to be offensive, I might have to spend 5-6 sentences on... All the additional verbage spent on trying to qualify exactly what I meant so that the person won't take offense. Problem is, you can't possibly cover every possible way someone might take offense, so I've just stopped trying. If people don't like it... It just saves me the trouble of dealing with an overly-senstive person. I'm not interested in having to engage in self-censorship because someone else can't take the truth. We've taken the whole huggy-feely thing WAY too far.

Your initial post to that member was accusatory and rude and assumed much not in evidence. If you had flat out just ASKED her if she had done research via Google or whatever search engine, it would have been less confrontational, gotten you the information YOU wanted, and you would have then offered up advice on what she wanted to know?????

You've been spouting your excessive rudeness to members for years now under various names, you're habits have never changed even one iota, you've referred to the Moderators in these forums over the years as 'thought-nazis', which is why you use the username you do now under a NEW alias, and if you think we're putting up with your garbage and insults to members longer than we have to, you're wrong.

If you so detest how things are done here in CNET (and the former ZDNET forums), why keep coming back? The rules aren't going to change just because you WISH them to be and antagonizing members and Moderators alike won't make it any easier on you and your posts. Which will continue to be deleted as we see fit....you call that censorship....we call it stopping a member from being out and out rude for no reason.

You don't like the sandbox? Fine...go litter in somebody else's then.

TONI

that being crass and rude isn't something somebody can just 'ignore'. If you don't like some of the posts that are written where people ask for help, why don't you just ignore THEM? Members asking for help is NOT an invitation to you to blast the daylights out of them when you haven't even bothered to garner the information YOU assume about them from the git-go.

You want them to work for themselves and get the answers on their own, and yet you don't bother to get the information YOU need in order to help them.

You can't have it both ways....criticism without an invitation to do so is NOT an option. Keep your trap shut if you don't like the questions people ask...just like you are demanding that we keep our traps shut if we don't like your answers.

TONI