A Death On The Internet

Flanders

Verified User
Hello everyone. This is my first thread on this board; so I thought I would say something about message boards in general.

Way back in 2011 the death of message boards was predicted. Admittedly, I do not now too much about the non-political message boards Heffernan cites:

Not to get too misty, but the board format itself might deserve a nostalgic embrace. The Internet forum, that great old standby of Web 1.0., has become an endangered species.

Many boards are stagnant or in decline, if they even still exist.


The Old Internet Neighborhoods
By Virginia Heffernan
July 10, 2011 5:30 pm

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/

I knew a little about political boards before and after they were given a big shove towards government control.

The attack on message boards has been endorsed by those stalwart defenders of the First Amendment in the government, “. . . or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .” and largely overlooked by public who sadly confuse freedom of speech with freedom of the press.

Obama’s guy engineered a preemptive strike on freedom of speech. His attack got no coverage by television’s talking head pundits:


Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”


Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/

Happily, Sunstein’s conspiracy theory accusation left town with Obama.

Unhappily, censorship in all of its forms is doing the job that . . . “conspiracy theorizing.” could not accomplish.

Incidentally, I saw poor taste cited as a reason censoring a message. Laughably, poor taste is the weakest excuse for censorship. It is nothing more than a sly way of saying my political belief is better than yours.

Liberals control most multiple-topic political message boards the same way print journalism and television control what the public thinks about every issue. Press barons make the rules. Owners of television’s transmitters make the rules. Message board proprietors make the rules. The owners of technology platforms make the rules. Every one of the four supports and encourages censorship. (The number of wealthy owners devoted to abolishing freedom of speech is miniscule.)

There is not one nor has there ever been a multiple-topic political message that permitted absolute political free speech.

Single-topic political message boards is the only way government and media can be reined in. That is boards dedicated to one issue —— immigration, the Supreme Court, the law, the Constitution, each constitutional amendment, the economy, war, the military, socialized medicine, global government and so on. In truth, the government will use every tool at its disposal to prevent conservative Americans from challenging collectivism issue by issue the same way the Left promote their conglomerate of garbage issue by issue —— and they do it with tax dollars.

The number of readers on each single-topic political message board cannot compete with the readership on the best-known multiple-topic boards. No matter. Taken in the aggregate they will be far more successful than the Democrat Party’s single-topic strategy television alternates the same way a hustling girl rotates her aphrodisiac working cloths to please the same customers.

NOTE: The first few message boards I joined were single-topic boards. Over the years multiple-topic political boards took control of format and rules. That speech-grab put most single-topic political boards out of business. I would post a message on 30 or 40 single-issue boards every week if they existed. I searched and could not one that I would join.

The demise of uncensored political message boards guaranties the death of the most powerful ally freedom of speech ever had. Listen to Tucker Carlson in the first four minutes of the video —— then listening closely to N.Y. State Senator Kevin Parker double-talk the Left’s justification for gun control censorship and you will see why message boards pose such a threat to the Left’s ideology. Basically, Gatling gun talkers go on and on about their “focus” regardless of the truth not to mention constitutional Rights; so they must censor thoughts because the written word will expose them for what they are on every topic on uncensored message boards:



NOTE: Tucker Carlson standing up for Social Media in the lion’s den deserves a lot of credit, while the man he replaced on the coveted 8:00 pm time slot, Bill O’Reilly, repeatedly blamed the Internet for all of society’s ills. That should tell you everything you have to know about O’Reilly. In short: O’Reilly topped himself since television did more harm to this country from within than all of its enemies can do if they ever find a way to attack freedom of speech militarily.

Finally, the government and the press are freedom of speech’s most powerful mortal enemies. C.E.O. censors on Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are James Madison incarnate when they are compared to a tax-dollar funded media and the government.

p.s. Americans rightfully care about freedom of speech not freedom of the press. Private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending their constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.
 
Hello everyone. This is my first thread on this board; so I thought I would say something about message boards in general.

Way back in 2011 the death of message boards was predicted. Admittedly, I do not now too much about the non-political message boards Heffernan cites:

Not to get too misty, but the board format itself might deserve a nostalgic embrace. The Internet forum, that great old standby of Web 1.0., has become an endangered species.

Many boards are stagnant or in decline, if they even still exist.


The Old Internet Neighborhoods
By Virginia Heffernan
July 10, 2011 5:30 pm

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/

I knew a little about political boards before and after they were given a big shove towards government control.

The attack on message boards has been endorsed by those stalwart defenders of the First Amendment in the government, “. . . or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .” and largely overlooked by public who sadly confuse freedom of speech with freedom of the press.

Obama’s guy engineered a preemptive strike on freedom of speech. His attack got no coverage by television’s talking head pundits:


Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”


Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/

Happily, Sunstein’s conspiracy theory accusation left town with Obama.

Unhappily, censorship in all of its forms is doing the job that . . . “conspiracy theorizing.” could not accomplish.

Incidentally, I saw poor taste cited as a reason censoring a message. Laughably, poor taste is the weakest excuse for censorship. It is nothing more than a sly way of saying my political belief is better than yours.

Liberals control most multiple-topic political message boards the same way print journalism and television control what the public thinks about every issue. Press barons make the rules. Owners of television’s transmitters make the rules. Message board proprietors make the rules. The owners of technology platforms make the rules. Every one of the four supports and encourages censorship. (The number of wealthy owners devoted to abolishing freedom of speech is miniscule.)

There is not one nor has there ever been a multiple-topic political message that permitted absolute political free speech.

Single-topic political message boards is the only way government and media can be reined in. That is boards dedicated to one issue —— immigration, the Supreme Court, the law, the Constitution, each constitutional amendment, the economy, war, the military, socialized medicine, global government and so on. In truth, the government will use every tool at its disposal to prevent conservative Americans from challenging collectivism issue by issue the same way the Left promote their conglomerate of garbage issue by issue —— and they do it with tax dollars.

The number of readers on each single-topic political message board cannot compete with the readership on the best-known multiple-topic boards. No matter. Taken in the aggregate they will be far more successful than the Democrat Party’s single-topic strategy television alternates the same way a hustling girl rotates her aphrodisiac working cloths to please the same customers.

NOTE: The first few message boards I joined were single-topic boards. Over the years multiple-topic political boards took control of format and rules. That speech-grab put most single-topic political boards out of business. I would post a message on 30 or 40 single-issue boards every week if they existed. I searched and could not one that I would join.

The demise of uncensored political message boards guaranties the death of the most powerful ally freedom of speech ever had. Listen to Tucker Carlson in the first four minutes of the video —— then listening closely to N.Y. State Senator Kevin Parker double-talk the Left’s justification for gun control censorship and you will see why message boards pose such a threat to the Left’s ideology. Basically, Gatling gun talkers go on and on about their “focus” regardless of the truth not to mention constitutional Rights; so they must censor thoughts because the written word will expose them for what they are on every topic on uncensored message boards:



NOTE: Tucker Carlson standing up for Social Media in the lion’s den deserves a lot of credit, while the man he replaced on the coveted 8:00 pm time slot, Bill O’Reilly, repeatedly blamed the Internet for all of society’s ills. That should tell you everything you have to know about O’Reilly. In short: O’Reilly topped himself since television did more harm to this country from within than all of its enemies can do if they ever find a way to attack freedom of speech militarily.

Finally, the government and the press are freedom of speech’s most powerful mortal enemies. C.E.O. censors on Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are James Madison incarnate when they are compared to a tax-dollar funded media and the government.

p.s. Americans rightfully care about freedom of speech not freedom of the press. Private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending their constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

Do you own your own internet venue?
 
Hello everyone. This is my first thread on this board; so I thought I would say something about message boards in general.

Way back in 2011 the death of message boards was predicted. Admittedly, I do not now too much about the non-political message boards Heffernan cites:

Not to get too misty, but the board format itself might deserve a nostalgic embrace. The Internet forum, that great old standby of Web 1.0., has become an endangered species.

Many boards are stagnant or in decline, if they even still exist.


The Old Internet Neighborhoods
By Virginia Heffernan
July 10, 2011 5:30 pm

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/

I knew a little about political boards before and after they were given a big shove towards government control.

The attack on message boards has been endorsed by those stalwart defenders of the First Amendment in the government, “. . . or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .” and largely overlooked by public who sadly confuse freedom of speech with freedom of the press.

Obama’s guy engineered a preemptive strike on freedom of speech. His attack got no coverage by television’s talking head pundits:


Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”


Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/

Happily, Sunstein’s conspiracy theory accusation left town with Obama.

Unhappily, censorship in all of its forms is doing the job that . . . “conspiracy theorizing.” could not accomplish.

Incidentally, I saw poor taste cited as a reason censoring a message. Laughably, poor taste is the weakest excuse for censorship. It is nothing more than a sly way of saying my political belief is better than yours.

Liberals control most multiple-topic political message boards the same way print journalism and television control what the public thinks about every issue. Press barons make the rules. Owners of television’s transmitters make the rules. Message board proprietors make the rules. The owners of technology platforms make the rules. Every one of the four supports and encourages censorship. (The number of wealthy owners devoted to abolishing freedom of speech is miniscule.)

There is not one nor has there ever been a multiple-topic political message that permitted absolute political free speech.

Single-topic political message boards is the only way government and media can be reined in. That is boards dedicated to one issue —— immigration, the Supreme Court, the law, the Constitution, each constitutional amendment, the economy, war, the military, socialized medicine, global government and so on. In truth, the government will use every tool at its disposal to prevent conservative Americans from challenging collectivism issue by issue the same way the Left promote their conglomerate of garbage issue by issue —— and they do it with tax dollars.

The number of readers on each single-topic political message board cannot compete with the readership on the best-known multiple-topic boards. No matter. Taken in the aggregate they will be far more successful than the Democrat Party’s single-topic strategy television alternates the same way a hustling girl rotates her aphrodisiac working cloths to please the same customers.

NOTE: The first few message boards I joined were single-topic boards. Over the years multiple-topic political boards took control of format and rules. That speech-grab put most single-topic political boards out of business. I would post a message on 30 or 40 single-issue boards every week if they existed. I searched and could not one that I would join.

The demise of uncensored political message boards guaranties the death of the most powerful ally freedom of speech ever had. Listen to Tucker Carlson in the first four minutes of the video —— then listening closely to N.Y. State Senator Kevin Parker double-talk the Left’s justification for gun control censorship and you will see why message boards pose such a threat to the Left’s ideology. Basically, Gatling gun talkers go on and on about their “focus” regardless of the truth not to mention constitutional Rights; so they must censor thoughts because the written word will expose them for what they are on every topic on uncensored message boards:



NOTE: Tucker Carlson standing up for Social Media in the lion’s den deserves a lot of credit, while the man he replaced on the coveted 8:00 pm time slot, Bill O’Reilly, repeatedly blamed the Internet for all of society’s ills. That should tell you everything you have to know about O’Reilly. In short: O’Reilly topped himself since television did more harm to this country from within than all of its enemies can do if they ever find a way to attack freedom of speech militarily.

Finally, the government and the press are freedom of speech’s most powerful mortal enemies. C.E.O. censors on Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are James Madison incarnate when they are compared to a tax-dollar funded media and the government.

p.s. Americans rightfully care about freedom of speech not freedom of the press. Private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending their constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

Do you own your own internet venue?
 
Do you own your own internet venue?

To kudzu: Your response is idiotic.

I am surprised you did not complain about my format. Do you remember these exchanges in 2009 on another board?


kudzu: Your big text is impossible to read.

To kudzu: I’ve posted messages on six or seven boards over the years. I’ve seen posters use tiny text, and text size larger than I use. I’ve seen posters use phonetic spelling. I’ve seen posters color their text with the lightest of colors while others highlighted their text with the harshest of colors when highlighting was available. I’ve seen posters that didn’t know a contraction from a condom. I’ve seen posters that did not punctuate or capitalize. The other regulars on those boards either got used to it or ignored it.

You don’t like what I say; so you attack the way I say it.


XXXXX


kudzu: So I take it you are opposed to mass immigration to the US and illegal aliens.. but you think it’s a great idea for Palestine.


To kudzu: I doubt if there is a mass immigration taking place in “Palestine.” There seems to be some doubt as to the existence of a country called Palestine.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; so don’t tell me what I think.
XXXXX

kudzu: Good grief.... Who wrote this dreck?

To kudzu: Obviously, I wrote the original message; so why bother responding if you have nothing to dispute? One line responses, saying nothing, only demonstrate your lack of perspicacity.
XXXXX

kudzu: Islam is not pacifist but it prohibits suicide and the initiation of hostilities

To kudzu: Offhand, I’d say that Muslims initiate hostilities wherever they can get away with it.

Australia is having the same problems with peace-loving Muslims that Europe is experiencing. With all of the Muslim violence being reported in foreign countries, I asked myself why Muslims keep a low profile in this country? The answer might be that the MSM has a blackout on stories that show Muslims in a bad light. It just won’t do to have Muslims make a mockery of multiculturalism.
XXXXX

kudzu: Flanders: Have you ever lived or worked anywhere in the Arab world?

Do you actually KNOW any Muslims?

Did you know that Avraham Stern of the Stern Gang tied to cut a deal with the Nazis in 1941?

Or..

In 1920 the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem denounced Zionist objectives in an address later published in the Church Times, London, in which he stated:

The Zionist Commission had been a very strong body; but it was not strong enough to control all its members, many of whom were extremists ... They had behaved and spoken as if the country had already been given to them and was theirs to dispose of as they would. In ordinary conversation among Zionists at Jerusalem it had been asked "What shall be done with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher? Shall it be burned or razed to the ground?"(4)

To kudzu: Here’s something a bit more current:

In 2001, Muslims flew two planes into a New York skyscraper and one plane into the Pentagon. Muslims were overcome by passengers in a third plane that crashed killing everybody onboard.

There is a lot more of your stupidity on that board, but I just wanted you to know I have the proof in your own words.
 
we have withstood the weasel brigade.......we have withstood the Stormwatchers........we have withstood the amazonerds......we can withstand anything (except Damo deciding to stop paying the bills).....Thanks, Damo......
 
To kudzu: Your response is idiotic.

I am surprised you did not complain about my format. Do you remember these exchanges in 2009 on another board?


kudzu: Your big text is impossible to read.

To kudzu: I’ve posted messages on six or seven boards over the years. I’ve seen posters use tiny text, and text size larger than I use. I’ve seen posters use phonetic spelling. I’ve seen posters color their text with the lightest of colors while others highlighted their text with the harshest of colors when highlighting was available. I’ve seen posters that didn’t know a contraction from a condom. I’ve seen posters that did not punctuate or capitalize. The other regulars on those boards either got used to it or ignored it.

You don’t like what I say; so you attack the way I say it.


XXXXX


kudzu: So I take it you are opposed to mass immigration to the US and illegal aliens.. but you think it’s a great idea for Palestine.


To kudzu: I doubt if there is a mass immigration taking place in “Palestine.” There seems to be some doubt as to the existence of a country called Palestine.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; so don’t tell me what I think.
XXXXX

kudzu: Good grief.... Who wrote this dreck?

To kudzu: Obviously, I wrote the original message; so why bother responding if you have nothing to dispute? One line responses, saying nothing, only demonstrate your lack of perspicacity.
XXXXX

kudzu: Islam is not pacifist but it prohibits suicide and the initiation of hostilities

To kudzu: Offhand, I’d say that Muslims initiate hostilities wherever they can get away with it.

Australia is having the same problems with peace-loving Muslims that Europe is experiencing. With all of the Muslim violence being reported in foreign countries, I asked myself why Muslims keep a low profile in this country? The answer might be that the MSM has a blackout on stories that show Muslims in a bad light. It just won’t do to have Muslims make a mockery of multiculturalism.
XXXXX

kudzu: Flanders: Have you ever lived or worked anywhere in the Arab world?

Do you actually KNOW any Muslims?

Did you know that Avraham Stern of the Stern Gang tied to cut a deal with the Nazis in 1941?

Or..

In 1920 the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem denounced Zionist objectives in an address later published in the Church Times, London, in which he stated:

The Zionist Commission had been a very strong body; but it was not strong enough to control all its members, many of whom were extremists ... They had behaved and spoken as if the country had already been given to them and was theirs to dispose of as they would. In ordinary conversation among Zionists at Jerusalem it had been asked "What shall be done with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher? Shall it be burned or razed to the ground?"(4)

To kudzu: Here’s something a bit more current:

In 2001, Muslims flew two planes into a New York skyscraper and one plane into the Pentagon. Muslims were overcome by passengers in a third plane that crashed killing everybody onboard.

There is a lot more of your stupidity on that board, but I just wanted you to know I have the proof in your own words.


Thanks.. I don't remember you at all.. Nothing I wrote is stupid.. LOLOL
 
my first was a board for Everquest gamers......

To PostmodernProphet: My first board was a Hillary Clinton board when she was running for the Senate in 2000. I think I was the only conservative.

For a 'First Post', he seems long-winded.

To Jack:
Thanks for getting that one out of the way! I do not post messages for bumper sticker mentalities.

Yeah a little to liberal for my taste too. Looks like we have another Evince.

To Mott the Hoople: Wow! If you think I am too liberal for your taste based on 9 messages you either have to be Attila the Hun, or you need a lot of work on your reading comprehension skills.
 
that's Ned flanders

Really? I still don't remember him.. Perhaps he doesn't know that Palestine had stamps and currency and newspapers.

Or, perhaps he has never read Shakespeare and Chaucer. Lots of stupid people on the internet.
 
Back
Top