Had you paid attention you would know that I don't accept your definition of censorship as being necessarily run through the government.
You are still all over the place. Censorship certainly can be non-governmental, but the concept of free speech simply is restricted to the government for a reason.
You don't have "free speech" to spray graffiti on someone's wall. And yes, they can paint it over and "censor" you.
Of course private censorship exists, and the point is that it's obvious that it should
exist. Part and parcel of individual freedom is the freedom to choose to ignore someone, or the freedom to choose not to pay for someone else's speech.
We have moved a lot of the administration of the collective out of government and into NGO's...outsourcing.... and your claims that it is not censorship if not done by the government betrays your ignorance of how modern democratic society conducts its business.
Again, you don't begin to understand this issue. I've simply not claimed "that it is not censorship if not done by government".
I doubt that I have even mentioned popularity during the last ten months, and when I did before that it was in reference to your idiotic and anti debate popularity metric at the new a2k.
First part's simply not true, and as to the second part make up your mind, you change between saying that it's "anti-debate", but can't bring a single bit of evidence for that position, to saying that it's just not finished yet and doesn't impede debate.
Consistency and truth clearly don't mean a whole lot for you, so which is it? If you claim it's "anti-debate" then I'll again ask you for data to support this allegation and you'll again not have any.
I was trying to explain to you why and how you fucked up, but of course you never understood and keep being pissed off at me for having the gaul to question your wisdom.
No, I am pissed at you for being a jerk, plenty of people "question my wisdom" without being a jerk. But your M.O. is to just piss people off.
So, for example, instead of complaining that the view counter does not exclude robots (which just about no forum's software does) you claim it is like the "gestapo". You go out of your way to be a dick.
Get over it.... I am making the best of what you have, and since you have not fully implemented your plans a2k still works pretty darn well.
You don't have the slightest idea of what my "plans" are, and here you go again saying that your accusations are for the unfinished "plans" when you can't bring a single datapoint to support your initial accusations of it actively limiting debate.
Once people start voting and you start shifting everything to reflect a members historic popularity a2k will be fucked, and then I will leave. Assuming that you don't throw me out before that time. And to your credit you have not done it yet.
Oh you martyr you. I hope you do leave, you are just a troll that provides nothing of value. You don't "debate" you just toss out vague rants that you can't begin to substantiate.
free speech supersedes just about everything else, including manners, of which you yourself often lack.
Feel free to start a thread on the definition of "troll", I will be there with bells on.
No, this is a perfectly good thread to discuss cyber trolls. It's about online censorship and cyber bigots. There is no basis for you to be pulling the off topic card here and you are trolling right now by aping my requests to keep other threads on topic to try to deflect criticism.
You are a troll. In a discussion with a Pelosi supporter you can't just state your qualms with Pelosi, you have to do something like call her a "****" just to try to offend people.
In a discussion about racism you call blacks idiots over and over to piss of the black people in the thread (one of whom you took to calling a "chump" as well).
When Tia Tequila's story broke you didn't just doubt her story, you call her a bitch and predictably offend people who believe her.
When you have problems with the site software you don't reasonably criticize it and bring data to support it, you go for hyperbole and say it's like the "gestapo".
You are like a walking Godwin's Law. You are a troll. And you aren't unpopular because of your positions, where you can't often stick to anything specific to defend, you are unpopular because you are a troll.
And part of your gig is to play martyr after you've gone out of your way to offend others. Here you go again saying that "free speech" (again, not related at all to being rude on a message board) supersedes manners but this isn't about free speech at all, you are trying to hijack that cause for your rudenss and trolling.
You could just have easily stated your positions without the deliberate attempts to offend others. You aren't debating, you are trolling. And when people start calling to stop feeding the troll you just switch to another troll, which this thread is all about: free speech. It's just a sophisticated game of trolling and yes, you are nothing more than a troll.