I seem to remember you voting against a topic ban in a previous vote,
and even publicly urging others to vote against it, in the interests of
open debate.  Yet now, in a seemingly Kerry-esque flip-flop, you are
attempting to silence those who espouse political stances of which you
disapprove, by using the reputation system as a bludgeon by means of
which to vote people out of a voice, a la Hermit.
I can only explain this apparent hypocrisy by considering you to be all
in favor of free speech and debate, so long as the positions espoused
are those with which you personally agree, but if they are not, you don't
want to hear them, and don't want anyone else here to hear them
either.  Let a thousand flowers bloom, so long as they are all your
favorite color.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

[Joe Dees]
I seem to remember you voting against a topic ban in a previous vote, and even publicly urging others to vote against it, in the interests of open debate.  Yet now, in a  seemingly Kerry-esque flip-flop, you are attempting to silence those who espouse political stances of which you disapprove, by using the reputation system as a bludgeon by means of which to vote people out of a voice, a la Hermit.

[rhinoceros]
You remember correctly but you understood wrongly. There has been no flip-flop. This is the one where I voted for lifting the topic ban:

http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=41
You will see this short comment next to my vote:

"We had better learn how to handle real life issues and the system should see to that."

So, what does the last phrase mean? I elaborated in this post:

http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=30419
<snip>
2. What are we willing to give up to have the problem(s) resolved?
Politeness? Freedom of speech? Accepting "inference by bargaining"? Self-amputating our arguments by removing certain facts? If we are going to pay ransom, shouldn't we use the factual clues we have about the value of whatever is involved?
<end snip>

[Rhinocerous]
The "factual clues we have about the value of whatever is involved" are the ratings and the votes. My last post was the logical conclusion of that one.

[Joe Dees 2]
No, the factual clues are in fact, the facts of the matter and what can be logically ascertained given those facts, not what people think of the people proffering those facts and logical conclusions deduceable from them.  Your suggested method poisons the well of rational discourse via the ad hominem fallacy.

[Joe Dees]
I can only explain this apparent hypocrisy by considering you to be all in favor of free speech and debate, so long as the  positions espoused are those with which you personally  agree, but if they are not, you don't want to hear them, and  don't want anyone else here to hear them either.  Let a thousand flowers bloom, so long as they are all your favorite color.

[rhinoceros]
Now you have a second explanation: What are we willing to give up? The only thing we will have to give up is the childish insults. There are people here to point out Kerry's and Moore's shortcomings without "anti-islamofascist" rants and without defacing the BBS, thank you.

[Joe Dees 2]
Knowing you from your posts here, it seems not a whit strange to me that, whern I am personally attacked in a most vulgar and immature manner by the likes of Irvken, that you would offer not a peep except to instigate a Hermitian atttempt to use the structure of the list and the votes of fellow irationalist Bush-haters in order to silence my dissenting views, but when I defend myself and my positions, perhaps a bit too ably, by offering facts that refute others' political contentions, you would whine and howl and gnash your tortured teeth about 'childish insults'.  Inconsistent, of course, but, coming from you, understandably so.