Cassandra, you have to include a photo and your full name in your profile or I will moderate you according to our policy. Other then that, welcome aboard!

Wm

Must admit I'm here in a spirit of curiosity coupled with mishief.  I 'm wondering about your "non-moderation". Only one site I know of, up till now, which practised that.

Wonder if you'll feel the same way after I introduce myself.

I wrote a couple of articles -  years back admittedly - for Free Radical. Then, for a while I posted on the previous incarnation of SoloHQ. Got kicked off for being, and I quote "the unsavoury cohort of Regi Firehammer" and saying mildly insulting things about his lordship Mr Brandon (chuck, chuck). 

I also wrote, on the Autonomist, the first, I think, positive complimentary review of PARC. And the moderator and owner of the site on which I wrote, Regi Firehammer of The Autonomist, must have been among the very first to support Valliants expose of the disgusting, sickening, Brandens.

So, am I still umoderated, I wonder.??

Whatever, cheers to all.  

... in this context one man's iconoclast might be another man's troll. Elijah's not a troll, but he crosses the fine line between provocateur and jerk sometimes, in my judgement. Still, flouncing on his account is indeed ridiculous.

I thought Suma's request totally reasonable and I personally wrote and authorised the new disclaimer. Folk can now post in complete confidence that they won't be contaminated by any other folk.

Linz

Well said Suma. Your criticism of Elijah's post is much better done than Joe Marone's departure. It's not worth flouncing over the latest troll.

In the words of the immortal Ronald Reagan... "there you go again!"

You live up to all the points I highlight in my "Naughty Little Scamp" post...(and I fine you $100).

My views are quite simple...I advocate Capitalism, Liberty, Freedom of Speech and a few other things you (by your own hilarious admission) do not understand.

*rolls eyes*

I am not offended by views I disagree with or do not understand. I just do not want people to mistakenly assume that they happen to be my views too.

I do not understand Elijah's views. He likes to say something shocking; hides behind emoticons; dilutes his shocking statements when called on them; and sees socialist conspiracies behind anyone who disagrees with him (or eats chocolate fish!). You are right that people can always ask him for clarifications; but it is also a valid option (mine) to choose to not spend the time to unravel his views.

I picked Elijah's post, but this holds just as well for Nick Otani (though I must confess I have not read any post of his past the 2nd line), etc - many birds with one shot.

To be fair, I think there is more than a little confusion causing the problem here. People are getting offended over something that wasn't said.

When first I saw Suma's post, I presumed she was meaning posts such as the flatulent drivel of Mr Otani and Mr Giles, only to discover my mistake when I clicked the link.

At that point I figured Elijah was just joking -- just as Felix Leiter joked with James Bond in 'Live & Let Die' that people are so easily offended "you can’t even ask a barman for a jigger of rum, these days. You have to ask for a jegro."

Turns out I was wrong again. What he meant by "independence for negroes" was simply "independence for African commonwealth countries," about which his point (if so worded) is surely unquestionable.

PC

we also add a bit about Chocolate fish?

I have a problem with Chocolate fish eaters.

At a recent meeting of the "Socialist Mind Control Federation" a motion was passed that eating chocolate fish is a great conspiracy by 'Boss Class' chocolate fish exploiters.

I would hate anyone reading a post on here which may be from someone who eats chocolate fish, and people thinking I endorsed this behaviour!

Thanks, Linz and Julian.

Hi Suma,

Good points. I have modified the disclaimer accordingly.

Cheers
Julian