In DEFENSE of FREE SPEECH

[Montaigut]

I will defend anyone's right to express their opinions. The speaker has the right to free speach and the listener has the right to hear the opinions expressed, if only to allow one to question the basis and validity of his or her belief.

If you have strong opinions about something start a thread on the subject. Do not highjack someone else's thread: stay on topic!

At best you will start a great thread. At worst you will find out nobody cares.

Get your own soapbox!

Respectfully,

Dan

[Colt45]

Free speech is not without responsibility or the possibility of repercussion - you can't just say whatever you want without expecting, at times, some

kind of response. Especially here, a privately owned forum.

[Montaigut]

Free speech is not without responsibility or the possibility of repercussion - you can't just say whatever you want without expecting, at times, some

kind of response. Especially here, a privately owned forum.

You can't speak in defense of free speach, as I have done, without accepting "the responsibility or the possibility of repercussion". I postulate that it is one of those self-evident truths.

This post is in response to "- you can't just say whatever you want without expecting, at times, some kind of response". We agree on that point.

The fact that this is a privately owned forum makes it even more important to behave as honored guests and to respect the atmosphere and spirit of the site as clearly explained by the owner in the Forum rules. Healthy discussion, fun and importantly respect for members. Highacking a thread is disrespectful.

Not only is it disrespectful and a lack of common sense, it can be outright silly sometimes. Just like showing up for a rugby match in an ice hockey attire!

Like I said, if you want to play hockey, find a rink...

[Smallclub]

Free speech is threatened by hijacking of threads?

[Stalebread]

.

I’ve never really understood the mandate to “stay on topic” on internet discussion forums. Some of the most interesting and satisfying conversations I’ve ever had were those that meandered naturally from topic to topic. On the other hand, I can see where it might get kinda irritating when you encounter individuals who have only one or two things to say and say them repeatedly regardless of the topic.

.

[chr0nic]

Right now I'm smoking a cracking Monte 2.

Just sayin'.

[Ginseng]

.I’ve never really understood the mandate to “stay on topic” on internet discussion forums. Some of the most interesting and satisfying conversations I’ve ever had were those that meandered naturally from topic to topic. On the other hand, I can see where it might get kinda irritating when you encounter individuals who have only one or two things to say and say them repeatedly regardless of the topic.

I agree, curious or insightful deviations can be enriching.

Speaking of FOH, specifically, there really isn't a "mandate" in the strict sense of the word. I consider this forum lightly managed for the spectrum of discussion that takes place here.

Wilkey

PS. Smoking a Jose L. Piedra Petite Cazadores. The poor man's Party Shorts. Just sayin'.

[khomeinist]

Smoke ERDM

Please do not jack my jack. Ok Jack?

[canadianbeaver]

Sorry... could not resist.

[DrunkenMonkey]

So, anyone doing any fishing this weekend?

[Warren]

Free speech. What is that really.

Can we say what ever the hell we like and claim it is our right to do so?

I guess in many democratic countries we believe we can, well we think we can but in many cases we really can't.

We have laws about insighting violence or hate and I believe we need these to a certain extent.

At the moment here in Australia, freedom of speech is a topic that we need to think more about.

Our current government would very much like to control what we the people and those in the media can say.

They actually want to control who is a fit and proper person to be in charge of a news paper or media organization.

The reason is because it is very rare to find a comment about them that isn't accompanied by words like incompetent or worst government in living memory.

These are the tactics of a communist dictatorship and not something I would ever expect to hear from the mouth of an Australian PM.

What she fails to see is that true freedom of speech is about the free flow of truth and truth can never be the sole possession of one side. Real truth often lies somewhere in the middle, between left and right.

Anyone trying ot restrict the flow from any one direction probably has something to hide.

Freedom of speech comes with great responsibility and should always be protected but it doesn't mean we can say what ever we want.

[PigFish]

... and did I mention this about the Cuban government???? -LOL

The topics themselves and the responses to the topics represent a conversation. A conversation means two or more people are involved in communication. When one person, or the topic starter talks and can by rule, dictate the dialogue, it becomes a blog, or a lecture and not a forum.

At a place such as this, 'free speech' is a misnomer. I would say that here, one possess a "limited license to speech." As it then pertains to this topic, I have taken the thread to where I think it belongs. My post represents my thoughts, my bias, my perspective.

Each person carries with them their online persona. Some folks like Guy for instance, are perfect gentlemen. Others are not. Some are controversial, some combative, some supportive but all who post give something to the forum and their value as individuals are judged by their peers.

Perspective and opinions are what forums are for. Conversations and the discovery of perspectives of others, the knowing of others, the learning from others, the teaching of othes is what forum life is. Forum life is sharing with others! It is not perfection. It is not speech utopia.

While I align with some, and piss-off others, that too is life. And forum life reflects this. No one is here to please another. We are here to have conversations about cigars and about our lives with or without cigars. We are all here for our own reasons; some to speak and be heard, some to read and learn, some for fraternity and friendship, some to rant and rave. I cannot possibly list all the reasons! We opine on topics we consider significant, we modify them, clarify them if we can, we add our perspective.

Who is to say what is interesting or informative to another? What is, "on topic?"

Topics of strength find their own path. On that path you learn about others and perhaps different perspectives. If the topic starter has noting to learn and may say so, he/she certainly cannot say that topic readers or participants are at the same level as he is. He can't say what is written by others is of no value to another. Who here will say he knows the thoughts of his brother? Who will define, or be the arbiter of what is on topic? The threads themselves, like living things, speak back to all that read. They do this via the participation of others, in what is said, in what is accepted and what is rejected.

For me, I will take the option of bringing my soap box to any thread I see fit. When I cannot do that. When I cannot respectfully opine, I will no longer post here. Those who are not interested in the nuances of the thoughts of others should blog rather than to attempt shape forums to resemble blogs. If one wants to post, unsupported and correspondingly unmolested, I would say a blog is a better format.

Would the thread starter wish to remove my post because I have expressed it and it may or may not be what he considers 'off topic?' Would he remove the jests and jokes posted before me? This thread like all threads is speaking back! This is a textbook case. Each thread is a textbook case!

Cheers. -Piggy

[PigFish]

... I did not bring up communism this time.... Warren did!!! -LOL

[khomeinist]

Am staying on topic. Because this topic about staying on topic is so topical.

[Yoruba Hacker]

Heck, staying on topic is easy. Originating a topic is topmost in topicality. No topic tops it.

I'm smoking crack. The poor man's....crack.

[CaptainQuintero]

I've always seen FOH as a collection of conversations as if members were all in one giant virtual lounge. In real life if someone changes the direction of a conversation there isn't a policeman who will jump in and with a whistle and whip of a truncheon bring a conversation back on topic.

Plus, there is zero right to free speech on the internet. You are always in someone's house. The only rules are the rules they set.

Anyone see any good films recently?

[PigFish]

Am staying on topic. Because this topic about staying on topic is so topical.

...Topically... you are pissing me off!

I mean typically, you are pissing me off!!! -LOL

What was I trying to say anyway? I have lost all sense of the topic!!! Typical!!!

[Montaigut]

.

I've never really understood the mandate to "stay on topic" on internet discussion forums. Some of the most interesting and satisfying conversations I've ever had were those that meandered naturally from topic to topic. On the other hand, I can see where it might get kinda irritating when you encounter individuals who have only one or two things to say and say them repeatedly regardless of the topic.

.

I believe that staying on topic is a matter of common sense; there are no hard and fast rules. The conversations that meander from topic to topic and manage to stay engaging and interesting are those that follow logical segways between topics (or meander naturally as you say). You always know how you got to where you are.

A thread titled "What does the color blue and cigar smoking have in common?" will likely go anywhere at anytime and probably give the topic "owner" and the participants what they are looking for.

A thread titled "LFTH" is no place for dialectics, diatribes or segways into other topics.

And somewhere in the middle between these two extremes a thread titled "which cigar is going to give me the closest flavor profile to my recently discontinued fave?" could also go anywhere. But I will ask myself before answering: "is what I am contributing going to help provide a useful answer to the question".

There is a place for all of those kinds of threads. Conversely, there is a place for all manners of replies.

There is a highjack when there is a mismatch between the two and you are left asking yourself ????....

Nuff said.

[khomeinist]

I can't believe that Stan Lee would support intergalactic thread-owner mind control tactics.

Much ado about nada. Zilch. Rien. Zero.

[mk05]

Salmon Allones.

[android]

I believe that staying on topic is a matter of common sense; there are no hard and fast rules. The conversations that meander from topic to topic and manage to stay engaging and interesting are those that follow logical segways between topics (or meander naturally as you say). You always know how you got to where you are.

A thread titled "What does the color blue and cigar smoking have in common?" will likely go anywhere at anytime and probably give the topic "owner" and the participants what they are looking for.

A thread titled "LFTH" is no place for dialectics, diatribes or segways into other topics.

And somewhere in the middle between these two extremes a thread titled "which cigar is going to give me the closest flavor profile to my recently discontinued fave?" could also go anywhere. But I will ask myself before answering: "is what I am contributing going to help provide a useful answer to the question".

There is a place for all of those kinds of threads. Conversely, there is a place for all manners of replies.

There is a highjack when there is a mismatch between the two and you are left asking yourself ??....

Nuff said.

Your entire conversation...BORING....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....Dude, go take your meds!

[DrunkenMonkey]

Did you hear the one where two nuns, a communist, a guy with a machine gun, and Ken walk into a bar?

[CaptainQuintero]

Koi d'Orsay

[chr0nic]

Salmon Allones.

Koi d'Orsay

This is a perfect example of where threads that 'go off topic' work. The post that became about cigar fish was my no-doubt favourite of the year... and it never would have come about if not for "hijacking". I mean, who intentionally starts a post and says "lets all come up with fish name alternatives!"

It should have been pinned as suggested.

Oh. And Koi-o de Manta Ray.

[Colt45]

Did you hear the one where two nuns, a communist, a guy with a machine gun, and Ken walk into a bar?

everyone else ducked....