|
Parent Article: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
|
Hidden with code "Policy Violation" |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by NRA4freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jun 2004
|
>"We are in the process of revising our editorial policy at this time."
I was directed to the current policy, where can I read the new one?
>"The Steering group has approved the interim policy the UC IMC editorial team is implementing."
That's nice, but it is apparently not available for anyone to read?
>"Besides, you (and your "buddies") never complained when we took a very lax approach to enforcement of the previous policy..."
I don't know about anyone else here, but I wasn't aware of this site when any "lax" things were happening, since the first things I ever read here was about the removal of Ryan's comments, which initially appeared to be little more than censorship...and still is censorship to some extent as it pertains to some of his posts. I have stated in the past that I do believe that messages that truly violate policies should be removed. But that's not the only messages being removed.
>"...nor did you make any real effort to stay within it."
That's totally untrue. As soon as I became aware of the hidden post area, and realized that the removal of many posts was valid, and that the removal of some others was an over reaction based on may that were removed, I immediately changed the content of my comments to attempt to reflect the guidlines stated in the IMC policy. But, even adhering to those policies does not stop the comments from being censored for bogus reasons much of the time.
>"No one took advantage of our offer of F2F discussion on this subject either."
Like people want to drive all the way to wherever you are to discuss censorship on a goofy web site? Again, isn't that what the "policy" was all about? Where does the "policy" say anything about face to face discussions about comments here? Did you contact Ryan by email like your policy states and try to work it out with him? Since no one sent me any emails, it seems unlikely.
>"Besides, if you are inclined to ignore our suggestions of how to stay within our previous policy, it is highly unlikely that you would respond appropriately to an email either."
Wait, now you are assuming something and basing censorship actions on those assumption??? You have got to be kidding! Do you know what the word "rationalization" means? What you are doing here is rationalizing your own inappropriate actions!
>"In any case, you have notice, as your comments acknowledge, of what our current policy is."
Again, rationalization. You did not follow your own policies, that's the real truth here.
>"Your continued posting of complaints about our editorial policy to a thread about "Fahrenheit 9/11" is symptomatic of the overall problem of the right-wing troll phenomenon."
LOL! No, what it is "symptomatic" of is that you did not follow your own policies so there is no email exchange, and there is no where here th discuss it! |
