JREF website banned

[nightwind]

Work part time at an educational facility. Students are "protected" from harmful websites by St Bernard Software. Well today after being able to use this site for several months, sadly we lost access to Randi's website, as it has been classified by St Bernard as alt/newage, which is not allowed.

The website was offered as a resource on the website, but evidently they found out that it was being accessed or St Bernard reclassified it.

Unfortunately classifying the JREF site as alt/newage will take it out of the reach of thousands of students.

Just was wondering if anyone else has ever run into the problem of having a good web resource banned or mis-classified under a heading that gets it filtered?

I frankly don't see how anyone can be harmed by this website. Do you?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by nightwind
I frankly don't see how anyone can be harmed by this website. Do you?

Depends on your definition of harm. Why not write them and ask them why they decided to filter it. Usually such things are done in a documentable fashion...or at least they are with other filter-services I've dealt with. It could be that the traffic alone was causing the problem.

Edit to add: I just visited their website and I think the traffic problem might be the reason.

Increases Employee Productivity
According to recent IDC study, companies lose an average of $3,000 per year per employee due to non-business related Internet activity.
Workers spend an average of 21 hours online at the office vs. an average of 9.5 hours at home (Nielsen/Net Ratings).

http://www.stbernard.com/products/iprism/products_iprism.asp

[Ed]

Originally posted by nightwind
Work part time at an educational facility. Students are "protected" from harmful websites by St Bernard Software. Well today after being able to use this site for several months, sadly we lost access to Randi's website, as it has been classified by St Bernard as alt/newage, which is not allowed.

The website was offered as a resource on the website, but evidently they found out that it was being accessed or St Bernard reclassified it.

Unfortunately classifying the JREF site as alt/newage will take it out of the reach of thousands of students.

Just was wondering if anyone else has ever run into the problem of having a good web resource banned or mis-classified under a heading that gets it filtered?

I frankly don't see how anyone can be harmed by this website. Do you?

alt/newage? hahahahaahahahhahahaahhahahahaahhaaaaaaaahahaahaha hahhahaahhahahaha it must be Bush hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha or the Jews hahahahahaha.

Seriously, an interesting attack paradigm.

[Ed]

I popped them this note:

I have discovered that the James Randi site (www.randi.org) has been added to your list of "alt/newage" sites and thus filtered. I suggest that someone visit the site since it is a place for debunking the absurd claims of those sites that you state that you wish to filter. I can understand how a lax site identification routine might identify Randi's site as suspect since the concepts typical of alt/newage sites are regularly pilloried. This is a case where you really want to go custom, not automated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Ed

ps.. I left off "Idiots". Think that was OK?:D

[Upchurch]

Well, that's disturbing. I've passed this along to Linda.

[Luke T.]

I've been trying to tell you all about this problem for a long time.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870445431

All your efforts to clean up the language here for the sake of schools and libraries is a total waste of time. That is not how filters work.

[a_unique_person]

Any actual reason, besides alt/newage.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Any actual reason, besides alt/newage.
Apparently the place is infested with Australians.

[Chupacabras]

[church lady]


Well, could it be...

ZAMMIT?


[/church lady]

[Zep]

Hmm? Oh don't mind me! I'm just one of those infesting Australians.

[Phrost]

Bullshido isn't blocked by any filters in the free world that I know of, and we don't moderate for language beyond the front page.

However, the People's Republic of China blocks their citizens from accessing us apparently. (Which probably has more to do with us bashing their national sports of WuShu and state-sponsored WooWoo, than the "naughty" language of us alpha-male martial arts folks).

[Hutch]

I remember when working in the United Arab Emirates I needed access to a Site for DEfense Supply EXcellence, or DESEX for short. The filter blocked it because it had those magic letters S-E-X in the address. Finally had to have an Emirate LTC write a letter to Etisilat (the sole service provider) to get access to the site.

Didn't find Randi until I got back in the US of A, so not sure if he was blocked or not (given that at least one poster is in Dubai, apparently the Amazing one hasn't been discovered to be an athesist infidel yet....;)

[Linda]

Thank you Upchurch, for bringing this to may attention. We'll see if we can contact them and correct it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Luke T.
All your efforts to clean up the language here for the sake of schools and libraries is a total waste of time. That is not how filters work. To be honest, Luke, I think we've given up on the automated filters a while back. I think we're more worried about the human filters at this point, like the one mentioned above.

Plus, if there are kids reading this forum (and I hope that there are), I don't think it is unreasonable to want this to be a (mostly) kid friendly joint.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Hutch
apparently the Amazing one hasn't been discovered to be an athesist infidel yet....;)

Although now, thanks to your post, this will likely be "corected".

:D

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Plus, if there are kids reading this forum (and I hope that there are), I don't think it is unreasonable to want this to be a (mostly) kid friendly joint.

Which is fair, because it's your forum and you guys could require us to speak in Olde AEnglish if that's how you wanted to run it.

I'm just of a different opinion in that:

A.) Protecting kids has been a "justification" for all kinds of censorship in the recent past.

B.) It's the parent's responsiblity, not the media's (which includes the JREF for its news and commentary) to ensure a child has a proper understanding of when certain words are socially appropriate and when they are not.

C.) Your policy, while well-intentioned, is a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided attachment to Victorian prudery.

Not shooting the messenger, just expressing a viewpoint.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Phrost
C.) Your policy, while well-intentioned, is a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided attachment to Victorian prudery.


That may be, as far as the objectionable practices go, but the objection to certain words is an older prejudice than the Victorian era. Some of the "four letter" words considered "bad" today are Anglo-Saxon words that might have gained their "bad" status as a result of post-Conquest Norman prejudice against the natives, although having been perfectly acceptable and "polite" words back in their day.

A good example is "lust". It originally meant "pleasure" or "joy" in Old English, but took on its carnal (and perjorative) cast later. True, words change connotations and meanings over time...but sometimes there are reasons behind the changes.

It's an interesting theory, anyway.

Personally, I like archaic "bad" words. There's not a filter in use that will stop me from saying "futter". (Or buss, but that's a perfectly innocent word that just sounds perverse.)

[Phrost]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
That may be, as far as the objectionable practices go, but the objection to certain words is an older prejudice than the Victorian era. Some of the "four letter" words considered "bad" today are Anglo-Saxon words that might have gained their "bad" status as a result of post-Conquest Norman prejudice against the natives, although having been perfectly acceptable and "polite" words back in their day.

A good example is "lust". It originally meant "pleasure" or "joy" in Old English, but took on its carnal (and perjorative) cast later. True, words change connotations and meanings over time...but sometimes there are reasons behind the changes.

It's an interesting theory, anyway.

Personally, I like archaic "bad" words. There's not a filter in use that will stop me from saying "futter". (Or buss, but that's a perfectly innocent word that just sounds perverse.)

Good point, I'd forgotten about the Anglo-Saxon thing.

While I'm on a roll with endearing myself to the admin staff here, I'd also like to suggest reducing the number of posts per page to around 15 or 20 so the threads load faster... especially considering the average post here is several paragraphs.

[Ashi]

Phrost-

Unfortunately my company's filtering software blocks your website.

"http://bullshido.com/ has been categorized as Pornography. It has been blocked per your organization's Internet Usage Policy for group Public. If you feel you reached this page in error please, contact your System Adminstrator."

I don't know why. Any ideas?

[geni]

Originally posted by Phrost
Good point, I'd forgotten about the Anglo-Saxon thing.

While I'm on a roll with endearing myself to the admin staff here, I'd also like to suggest reducing the number of posts per page to around 15 or 20 so the threads load faster... especially considering the average post here is several paragraphs.

You can ajust this in your user cp under options about halfway down the page.

[rikzilla]

no good deed ever goes unpunished... :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Phrost
Bullshido isn't blocked by any filters in the free world that I know of, and we don't moderate for language beyond the front page.

However, the People's Republic of China blocks their citizens from accessing us apparently. (Which probably has more to do with us bashing their national sports of WuShu and state-sponsored WooWoo, than the "naughty" language of us alpha-male martial arts folks).

Yes, the western refug... err infidels claims we drove tanks over the old kung fu schools and the masters fled to Hong Kong and that the Republic replaced it with watered down WuShu which is more fancy than fight to keep the people suppressed.

The People's Republic of China will censor any site that makes such outrageous claims.

[nightwind]

Randi's site has now been unblocked here. At first thought it was local override, but now think that St Bernard unblocked it. Although haven't found out yet.

Mid afternoon, I could just get into site, and forum appeared to be blocked. But later this afternoon the whole site was unblocked , and now everyone can access the whole site!

Thanks to those who may have helped get this done.

Now, if I could just get access to the dozens of other Science sites, that are blocked for various reasons. In fact it is almost impossible to do any science research using the web, as there is so much blocked out. Sigh.

Wish there was another way to address filtering, etc

Thanks again.

[a_unique_person]

Science is obviously dangerous.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Science is obviously dangerous.

No, it's your name calling and flame wars with Skeptic and Mycroft that blocks the site.You should be ashamed of yourself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No, it's your name calling and flame wars with Skeptic and Mycroft that blocks the site.You should be ashamed of yourself.

The reason given was alt/newage, that is, pusing homeopathy or similar.

You are right, I don't feel proud of myself at all for my dealings with Mycroft and ZN, but then I would hate to see this site turn into a clone of little green footballs, which would be even worse. If left unchallenged, I would fear we would be inundated with that sort of tripe.

[Cleopatra]

Unique what are you talking about? Haven't you drunk coffee yet?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Unique what are you talking about? Haven't you drunk coffee yet?

Can't drink coffee, too much caffeine.

[nightwind]

Oh, well never mind. The site has been re-blocked. Guess Randi will just have to clean up this new age website. Ha.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Phrost
C.) Your policy, while well-intentioned, is a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided attachment to Victorian prudery.

Actually, it's a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided Stockholm syndrome related to the Norman Conquest of 1066, but near enough.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Phrost
A.) Protecting kids has been a "justification" for all kinds of censorship in the recent past.I never claimed that. Originally, the "forbidden words" thing was a flawed attempt, as Luke pointed out, to avoid nanybots. Other reasons various content was removed or modified (off the top of my head) includes things like the content was illegal, violated copyright laws, and/or posed a threat to members of the board.
B.) It's the parent's responsiblity, not the media's (which includes the JREF for its news and commentary) to ensure a child has a proper understanding of when certain words are socially appropriate and when they are not.Yes, but I don't think the JREF wants to force any parents to have to make the decision between being able to view the JREF forum and having to explain all maner of things befor they are comfortable to do so.
C.) Your policy, while well-intentioned, is a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided attachment to Victorian prudery.Perhaps, but we still live in that society.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Phrost

A.) Protecting kids has been a "justification" for all kinds of censorship in the recent past.

Yes it has; but that point really isn't very relevant. Godwin's Law is just around the corner.

Originally posted by Phrost
B.) It's the parent's responsiblity, not the media's (which includes the JREF for its news and commentary) to ensure a child has a proper understanding of when certain words are socially appropriate and when they are not.

I think most of us can agree that the overall message of the JREF is important enough that everybody - including young people - should have access to it without 'certain words' ever even becoming a consideration. Should children be penalized (re: denied access to the message) becaust their parents have decided that certain words are in general not socially appropriate? If not, then it makes no sense to press for an ability to use the controversial language, especially since the language isn't required to communicate the message. Unless, of course, it isn't important for young people to be able to hear the message.

Originally posted by Phrost
C.) Your policy, while well-intentioned, is a reflection of English-speaking society's misguided attachment to Victorian prudery.

That's true; but it's necessary at this time (see above).

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by nightwind
Oh, well never mind. The site has been re-blocked. Guess Randi will just have to clean up this new age website. Ha.
Nightwind , I'm sorry You are being subject to arbitrary censorship, but you must keep in mind that certain behaviors are not tolerated on privately owned or supervised sites.
On this very site , One may not say the "N" word or the "F" word and others. ( wonder how a Kurt Vonnegut novel would make it?).

Point being some sites demonstrate a modicum of accommodation to different ideas ......and some don't
Many people and institutions concider that questioning of dogma regardless of the relevance or trvth of the effort , very dangerous. That is especially true of religious and quack sites.
/tirade

The truth is the people in charge don't want competition or being put on the spot as to explain their practices or ideas, that represents a threat. DO NOT THINK for yourself! Let the dogmatics think for you.

Seriously I was raised in a Catholic family in which my Aunt was the head of the carmelite order in NY and my Uncle (a philosophy prof) wrote books on meta-physics. I have experienced first hand the wall of ignorance at "Our Lady Of Perpetual Motion".
.
/tirade off

Find yourself a transparent Proxy server, most of the Luddites ain't tecno savy . Don't use anonomizer cuz that prolly blocked.Good Luck , keep up the fight. There are others here with You.

[Darat]

The current set of rules about bad language are in place for two reasons,

1) I brought them over to the new rules from the old rules.
2) I brought them over because I believed that the JREF didn't want "bad" language on this forum.

I think 2) can be taken as a given since Randi edited the rules I had got together, he could have at that point removed Rule 8 or altered it.

(Please note I am using "I" above in the sense I put them together and edited the rough drafts, the actual rules were considered, discussed and debated by the Moderating Team and Linda, they aren't "my" rules in the sense its what I say goes.)

I have maintained (from the first time that censorship was introduced and the idea of "net nannies" was brought up) that it is almost totally irrelevant the words used on the forum as to whether the site would be blocked, the content is more likely to see randi.org and the forum being blocked then anything else.

I view the restriction or censorship of the language here to be of the same ilk as the self-censorship shown by most mainstream media that wants to attract as large an audience as possible (without sacrificing the ability to discuss contentious and ).

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
(snip)

I think most of us can agree that the overall message of the JREF is important enough that everybody - including young people - should have access to it without 'certain words' ever even becoming a consideration. Should children be penalized (re: denied access to the message) becaust their parents have decided that certain words are in general not socially appropriate? If not, then it makes no sense to press for an ability to use the controversial language, especially since the language isn't required to communicate the message. Unless, of course, it isn't important for young people to be able to hear the message.


Well, Randi wants the "certain words" kept out of his forum, Joshua, regardless of what we "might all agree on", otherwise I agree with some of what you wrote.

[devils advocate]Suppose we eliminate all of the "certain words" that cause the JREF site to be blocked. Aren't parents still responsible for making sure their kids aren't exposed to atheism, or critical thinking, or something else they don't want them to know about/read/see?[/devil's advocate]

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Well, Randi wants the "certain words" kept out of his forum, Joshua, regardless of what we "might all agree on", otherwise I agree with some of what you wrote.

[devils advocate]Suppose we eliminate all of the "certain words" that cause the JREF site to be blocked. Aren't parents still responsible for making sure their kids aren't exposed to atheism, or critical thinking, or something else they don't want them to know about/read/see?[/devil's advocate]


Yes and that's why "no bad words" alone isn'tt enough to keep a site clear of some blocking software.

For instance set an AOL account up with "Kids" access (12 and under) and the kid can't get to www.randi.org, set it to 13-15 year old and hey presto they can access the site.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Darat, I'm afraid you misapprehend me. The Randi forum is one of the sites that demonstrate a "modicum of accommodation to different ideas". I just used the phrase to demonstrate the application of limits , while respecting the idea of free exchange rather then blocking access.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No, it's your name calling and flame wars with Skeptic and Mycroft that blocks the site.You should be ashamed of yourself.
Would you prefer people were apologists for thier bigotry?

I now Ignore Mycroft. I'm uneasy about that because I believe that people who post here with links to sites like little green footballs in thier sig should be stood up to at every opportunity. If I'm ashamed of anything it is becoming tired of beating down this poison....But what do you care eh?

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Ashi
Phrost-

Unfortunately my company's filtering software blocks your website.

"http://bullshido.com/ has been categorized as Pornography. It has been blocked per your organization's Internet Usage Policy for group Public. If you feel you reached this page in error please, contact your System Adminstrator."

I don't know why. Any ideas?

Probably the "bullshi" bit. I had to explain to my ad provider what we were about because they initially rejected us as well for "profanity".

We don't host porn... it's a martial arts site.

[Phrost]

Don't get me wrong, I love the JREF and support its mission 100%.

I was just in an argumentative mood when I posted that.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Linda
Thank you Upchurch, for bringing this to my attention. We'll see if we can contact them and correct it.

It seems, from reading comments here, that if the website is being blocked, probably by automated criteria, then it is due to the forum rather than the rest of the site; either because of a blanket ban on forums, or because of the occasional (censored) comment.

A simple solution might be to direct to the forum from the randi.org site in plain text, instead of via a link that can be automatically followed by a robot.


:)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I've been trying to tell you all about this problem for a long time.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870445431

All your efforts to clean up the language here for the sake of schools and libraries is a total waste of time. That is not how filters work.

To paraphrase the old joke, what do you mean "your," white man?

Most of the plebes like me, who have even less influence on the moderators than you do, pretty much have figured out that the idea that omitting Saxon words will make it all better is a pointless fantasy.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The reason given was alt/newage, that is, pusing homeopathy or similar.

You are right, I don't feel proud of myself at all for my dealings with Mycroft and ZN, but then I would hate to see this site turn into a clone of little green footballs, which would be even worse. If left unchallenged, I would fear we would be inundated with that sort of tripe.

I'm here because of you. When I first came to this site, I found you waging a one-man media campaing to smear Israel, and I opted to stick around to give the other side.

In real life I don't spend much time thinking about the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict. If you, Fool and Demon would cease your campaign, I'd move on to other issues.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Phrost
However, the People's Republic of China blocks their citizens from accessing us apparently.

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by Phrost
(Which probably has more to do with us bashing their national sports of WuShu

It's not their national sport.

Originally posted by Phrost
and state-sponsored WooWoo, than the "naughty" language of us alpha-male martial arts folks).

Randi and his ideas are very well respected in China by both ordinary people and government. His books are translated into Chinese and very popular and easier to find than woo-woo titles.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Fool
Would you prefer people were apologists for thier bigotry?

I now Ignore Mycroft. I'm uneasy about that because I believe that people who post here with links to sites like little green footballs in thier sig should be stood up to at every opportunity. If I'm ashamed of anything it is becoming tired of beating down this poison....But what do you care eh?

Eh? Bigoted? poison? I find that pretty offensive and rather close minded, but, you're free to block anyone you like.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by H3LL
...Randi and his ideas are very well respected in China by both ordinary people and government. His books are translated into Chinese and very popular and easier to find than woo-woo titles.

I took it that Phrost is saying that *his* website (bullshido.org) is being blocked, not Randi's.

And it may be merely due to the fact that there just aren't enough people in all of China to read through all of the threads over there and keep up with the commentary.
:p

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Fool
Would you prefer people were apologists for thier bigotry?

I now Ignore Mycroft. I'm uneasy about that because I believe that people who post here with links to sites like little green footballs in thier sig should be stood up to at every opportunity. If I'm ashamed of anything it is becoming tired of beating down this poison....But what do you care eh?

I was joking and I think that unique understood that I was joking.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
Eh? Bigoted? poison? I find that pretty offensive and rather close minded, but, you're free to block anyone you like.
Have a cruise around little green footballs...you will see what I mean.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Have a cruise around little green footballs...you will see what I mean.

Yeah, just in case you need help finding it, let me help.

Little Green Footballs Weblog (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Fool
Have a cruise around little green footballs...you will see what I mean.
seems I'm not the only one that has a problem with Mycrofts little home on the web...

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277935.html

UK supporters of racist website Little Green Footballs to meet at London venue.
It may be significant that the venue of choice for high-minded political discussion among the supporters of the racist website litte green footballs is an Oxford Street comic book store, but that shouldn't put people off going along.
LGF, for those who don't know it, is a website for rabidly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim right-wingers who stir up hate and spread distortions at every opportunity. Highly versed in coordinating their attacks on media outlets that dare to question, say, the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, LGF supporters have also proven themselves a major pest on Indymedia websites all over the world.
By posting racist comments, hurling abuse and generally clogging up servers with rubbish these people have blackened the atmosphere of free discussion and grassroots information exchange. All those who can should try to attend some of these meetings and talk to the people who support such a rabidly racist website in order to find out more about them, what drives them and who they are supported by.


http://seeingeye.blogs.com/news/2004/10/kristof_sinks_t.html

In a column this week he does a little of the former but goes overboard on the latter. The story, about an unfortunate rape victim in Pakistan, ends up literally raping the reader by essentially mimicking a hate site, Little Green Footballs, which racistly reports bad things about Arabs and other "lesser breeds."

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001679.html

LGF is a Los Angeles-based warblog by Charles Johnson that generates 3,000 comments a day and invites strong opinions about the war, Islam and questioners of Administration policy. Critics consider LGF one of the blogosphere's more virulent Arab-bashing hate sites, and think that decent advertisers should shun it and intelligent bloggers should delink it.

http://jogin.com/weblog/archives/2002/08/31/little_green_racists

LGF has become a propaganda machine of hatred towards Muslims and Arabs. Like a KKK discussion board or Neo-Nazi site it tars a group with the same brush - always attacking, always negative, always making general accusations and encouraging hatred; but because it is anti-Islam, LGF is growing in support. Will the weblog community treat LGF the same way it treated Clearguidance.com? Is it brave enough?

http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_lgfwatch_archive.html

Every once in a while we get emails from LGF readers asking: "Why do you say LGF is racist? Even if some people make racist comments on the LGF message board, that's not Charles' fault. Charles simply tells it like it is."

That this is not the case is easy enough to demonstrate: yesterday, Charles posted an item about a murder that took place thousands of miles away from where most of his readers live, a murder that has nothing to do with Macs, webdesign, cycling, anti-Semitism, Iraq or the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The murder took place in New Zealand: a young man killed a young woman by dousing her with fuel and setting her alight, after she broke off their relationship. Tragic as this case is, such things happen all over the world, and would go unnoticed by Charles were it not for the fact that the perpetrator and the victim have Muslim-sounding names (whether they are Muslim or not is not clear). This alone is the cue for Charles to pick up a story, post it where hundreds of thousands of people will read it, and headline the item: "Honor Killing in New Zealand" (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12316).



Oh well...as I have said before, everyone needs a place where they feel at home.

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool
seems I'm not the only one that has a problem with Mycrofts little home on the web...
[b]
http://seeingeye.blogs.com/news/2004/10/kristof_sinks_t.html

In a column this week he does a little of the former but goes overboard on the latter. The story, about an unfortunate rape victim in Pakistan, ends up literally raping the reader by essentially mimicking a hate site, Little Green Footballs, which racistly reports bad things about Arabs and other "lesser breeds."


Oh well...as I have said before, everyone needs a place where they feel at home.

Forgive me for not addressing everything, but I picked this one at random (No. 2).

It should be obvious that the issue concerns a socially condoned practice of demeaning women and treating them as chattel, at least if they are seen as misbehaving in any way. That is not the "socially accepted norm" in Utah or most of the Christian world, although it has it's similarities in the "Macho Latin Man" syndrome where men can be excused for harming women because their "honor" was besmirched. It is however the norm in many parts of the Muslim world, and something to work against, yet you use it as just a cheap example of a cheap attack against someone you perceive as a critic of Arabs and Muslims.

Cheap shot Fool. You can do better, and you obviously feel at home here.

.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Elind
Forgive me for not addressing everything, but I picked this one at random (No. 2).

It should be obvious that the issue concerns a socially condoned practice of demeaning women and treating them as chattel, at least if they are seen as misbehaving in any way. That is not the "socially accepted norm" in Utah or most of the Christian world, although it has it's similarities in the "Macho Latin Man" syndrome where men can be excused for harming women because their "honor" was besmirched. It is however the norm in many parts of the Muslim world, and something to work against, yet you use it as just a cheap example of a cheap attack against someone you perceive as a critic of Arabs and Muslims.

Cheap shot Fool. You can do better, and you obviously feel at home here.

.

Can we chalk you up as another LGF supporter? I'd hate Mycroft to feel lonely.

Have you spent any time at LGF or are you basing your support simply on my condemnation?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind
Forgive me for not addressing everything, but I picked this one at random (No. 2).

It should be obvious that the issue concerns a socially condoned practice of demeaning women and treating them as chattel, at least if they are seen as misbehaving in any way. That is not the "socially accepted norm" in Utah or most of the Christian world, although it has it's similarities in the "Macho Latin Man" syndrome where men can be excused for harming women because their "honor" was besmirched. It is however the norm in many parts of the Muslim world, and something to work against, yet you use it as just a cheap example of a cheap attack against someone you perceive as a critic of Arabs and Muslims.

Cheap shot Fool. You can do better, and you obviously feel at home here.

.

Actually ex 2 is someone being attacked for being linke LGF, I think, but the point still holds. That is all LGF seems to carry, reasons to hate Muslims, Lefties, etc, and reasons why Dubya is someone who makes you feel damn proud to be an American, with everyone patting each other on the back at what geniuses they are.

At least here, if you say something stupid, you'll be pulled up for it, the range of topics is wide and varied.

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool
Can we chalk you up as another LGF supporter? I'd hate Mycroft to feel lonely.

Have you spent any time at LGF or are you basing your support simply on my condemnation?

I'll simply repeat my earlier post which was based, as stated, on the text provided and your comments. I haven't a clue about LGF and have no doubt that there are all levels of critics out there; perhaps like Van Gogh for example?

We all have our chalk marks don't we? You included.

:p

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Actually ex 2 is someone being attacked for being linke LGF, I think, but the point still holds. That is all LGF seems to carry, reasons to hate Muslims, Lefties, etc, and reasons why Dubya is someone who makes you feel damn proud to be an American, with everyone patting each other on the back at what geniuses they are.

At least here, if you say something stupid, you'll be pulled up for it, the range of topics is wide and varied.

I'll have a look at it for future reference, or posts from Fool. My comment to him however, I think, stands regardless of my opinion of LGF.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Elind
I'll simply repeat my earlier post which was based, as stated, on the text provided and your comments. I haven't a clue about LGF and have no doubt that there are all levels of critics out there; perhaps like Van Gogh for example?

We all have our chalk marks don't we? You included.

:p
yep...hate sites like stormfront, lgf, jewwatch etc. They are the types of sites that are most definitely on the other side of my chalk line. It will be a sad day when thier promotion on this site goes unchallenged.

[Roadtoad]

Since others have already mentioned this, I'll chime in with my own two cents:

Odd that Randi.org is blocked on numerous computers for schools and the like, (it discusses RELIGION! and people might be offended), but you can log into Stormfront on damn near any computer anywhere, and it's permitted because we must protect "Free Speech."

It's damn funny to me the number of people who wrap themselves in the Constitution when it comes to filth like Stormfront, but when people want to have intelligent discussions about religions, drugs, sex, science, art, or what have you, suddenly, the Constitution goes right out the window.

Sorry, not enough coffee. I like it strong enough to crawl out of the pot and attack my leg.

[MetalLibrarian]

I am happy to see so many people writing about the importance of non-filtered internet access in libraries and schools! :)

I think it would be great if those of you who are living in places where there is filtering called/wrote your elected officals and expressed your displeasure.

Or if there are not internet filters in your local library/school call the library director or school priciple or elected officals, tell them how glad you are! Public opinion really matters, especially concerning libraries and filtering.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by MetalLibrarian
I am happy to see so many people writing about the importance of non-filtered internet access in libraries and schools! :)

I think it would be great if those of you who are living in places where there is filtering called/wrote your elected officals and expressed your displeasure.

Or if there are not internet filters in your local library/school call the library director or school priciple or elected officals, tell them how glad you are! Public opinion really matters, especially concerning libraries and filtering.
Hi Metal, welcome to the forum...
can I assume from your name you are a librarian?
If so, do you have any obligations regarding what you allow people to access in your library. For example, you don't stock porno magazines. Do you have any obligations or duty of care with people using libraries to attempt to prevent them coming into contact with certain things? What I'm really getting at is if this filtering is a voluntary decision taken by library management or is thier some regulatory requirement in your area.?

[peptoabysmal]

hmmmm...

I question the validity of being in a library and searching the internet for accurate information. I use internet sources in the forum out of convenience, but IRL; no way. I'd get laughed at like what's-his-name did when he said his "plan" was posted on his website.

If you don't like your school's filtering, buy your own service from another provider. How hard is that?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I was joking and I think that unique understood that I was joking.

I do actually think that Randi is right to ask that we create a repository of information that can be used by those in interested in scepticism. Flame wars, in which emotion leads to illogical outbursts, do not support that mission.

I can admit to being guilty of this once of twice myself, and can't say I am proud of it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by MetalLibrarian
I am happy to see so many people writing about the importance of non-filtered internet access in libraries and schools! :)

I think it would be great if those of you who are living in places where there is filtering called/wrote your elected officals and expressed your displeasure.

Or if there are not internet filters in your local library/school call the library director or school priciple or elected officals, tell them how glad you are! Public opinion really matters, especially concerning libraries and filtering.

In my area, government funds for internet access at public libraries was tied to an obligation to install filters on all publicly accessible computers. My city refused to accept the money with strings, and our libraries offer both filtered and unfiltered terminals. Our immediately neighboring city took the money and put filters everywhere---sell outs! But it was sad that they pretty much had to choose between having funding or censorship. The wealthier library system could afford to refuse.

[MetalLibrarian]

Originally posted by The Fool
Hi Metal, welcome to the forum...
can I assume from your name you are a librarian?
If so, do you have any obligations regarding what you allow people to access in your library. For example, you don't stock porno magazines. Do you have any obligations or duty of care with people using libraries to attempt to prevent them coming into contact with certain things? What I'm really getting at is if this filtering is a voluntary decision taken by library management or is thier some regulatory requirement in your area.?

Yes, I am a librarian. And your question is a good one.
We are not under legal obligation to use filters, but we have (and had for years) a written internet use policy. That policy prohibits the viewing of pornography etc. Plus, if a customer complains about what someone is looking at, we go over and check it out. We also randomly walk through the computer lab to check. Often times students do reports on the history of hate crimes or violence against women, and porn pop ups cannot be prevented. Or, the images they are writing about are disturbing, but they are looking at them for a legititmate reason.

[MetalLibrarian]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
In my area, government funds for internet access at public libraries was tied to an obligation to install filters on all publicly accessible computers. My city refused to accept the money with strings, and our libraries offer both filtered and unfiltered terminals. Our immediately neighboring city took the money and put filters everywhere---sell outs! But it was sad that they pretty much had to choose between having funding or censorship. The wealthier library system could afford to refuse.

That is a HUGE problem. My library system does not accept federal funds, so we are under no obligation to install filters. We are not a rich community, but we have excellent local and state support. I think many libraries are finding the money they receive from the government is offset by the money spent installing and maintaining the filters. Some libraries try to compromise by turning off filters for adults and back on for children, but that wastes staff time.

I'm glad the librarians in your city stuck to principle!