<<<
PMFJI...
>>>

Come on in, the water's full of sharks.

<<<
>Translation: Other people are not behaving the way you would prefer.

They may not be behaiving the way I think they ought. Is that automatically bad somehow, simply becaseu I state it?
>>>

No, why do you ask?

<<<
But I need to behave the way they do right? The problem with this approach is that there is no end of people who proclaim that their set of rules is the right way to go.
>>>

Here's my rule: you do what you like and I'll do what I like. Easy eh?


<<<
The problem also is that there are precious few who are really able to explain from start to finish why they have chosen which "rules" they prefer. Can you?
>>>

Sure can, come on over to the offramp where there is a) an nntp interface, and b) no need to be coy for fear of censors.

<<<
I can but I can guarateee that most here wouldn't like my explanation simply because a lot of people do not want to know.
>>>

Wow, I guess we should all be breathless with anticipation.

<<<
The sad fact here is that we have gotten to the point where no one cares to have any standard and whenever one is proposed the usual mindless response is "Freedom of Speech", which is intelelctually vacant and, quite frankly, oftentimes a bunch of baloney.
>>>

Freedom of speech is intelectually vacant? Oh right, never mind, that's what Stalin said.

<<<
So, who is to say which set of rules is the "right" set?
>>>

Good question. My set of rules is simple: don't infringe on other peoples' freedom.

<<<
In the case of the Universal Thread it's really simple; Michel get to say. Period.
>>>

Yawn - why don't you just roll over on your back and pee all over yourself like a little puppy dog?


<<<
What Michel decides will certainly determine who might stay, whether voluntarily or not.
>>>

And I'm supposed to care? On the offramp we've been engaged in completely unconstrained free-speech for about a half dozen years now. When I get booted out of the UT I'll be back on the offramp laughing at y'all.

<<<
No, rules are a good thing. The problem is this; are the rules internal or external? If internal what do you do if they are different between individuals?
>>>

I'll just ignore the rest of your hyperbole. The answer, given above, is that individuals should do whatever the hell they feel like doing as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same.


<<<
>So you think that speech can be the same as destroying property? Guess you don't have much regard for the idea of freedom of speech.

Don't be stupid here. Of course speech can be harmful. Just ask the fellow who this last week put a bogus message on the Internet regarding some stock.
>>>

ROFLMAO! Speech isn't harmful, being gullible is.

<<<
The problem with the notion of the freedom of speech is that it should be coupled with the notion of personal responsibility.
>>>

And the problem with that idea is that there needs to be, applied to an individual, some notion of what exactly that responsibility might be. Apparently you would like to choose for others what their responsibilites are - I can only wonder how you'd like it if I was to make those choices for you.


<<<
Surely you are not advocating that people should be say anything they want without any regard whatsoever to the consequences of what they say?
>>>

Yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating. The alternative stiffles the creativity and free-flow of ideas which are human-kinds greatest strength.

Zane