Jump to content

Guidelines?


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Didn't you see a message saying a moderator would be checking your "stuff" ?]

Well, yeah, the generic message you get every time you post. But other than that, there's no way of knowing for sure what will get through and what won't. I don't think registered posters (one wouldn't be able to contact the unregistered ones) get any kind of notification if post X is disallowed or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Members and Guests:

It has been KOTW's policy to err on the side of allowing all posts through. On occasion a post is edited for content; held for further review; or deleted outright.

The deletion of content based posts is rare. There has been an increase in review time in the past few weeks. KOTW's apology.

KOTW's posting policy has withstood the test of time. Anyone who has visited KOTW throughout the years knows that KOTW welcomes the discussion of all points of view on its Discussion Board.

KOTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Members and Guests:

It has been KOTW's policy to err on the side of allowing all posts through.  On occasion a post is edited for content; held for further review; or deleted outright. 

The deletion of content based posts is rare.  There has been an increase in review time in the past few weeks.  KOTW's apology.

KOTW's posting policy has withstood the test of time.  Anyone who has visited KOTW throughout the years knows that KOTW welcomes the discussion of all points of view on its Discussion Board.

KOTW

Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
I've tried to start several new threads and they disappear, they weren't personal, obscene, etc.  Are there guidelines somewhere?

No, the dumbest people can post the dumbest statements with no problem. l

Paul and Strife come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No, the dumbest people can post the dumbest statements with no problem.  l

  Paul and Strife come to mind.

Don't sell yourself short. When DUMB is mentioned PatRat comes immediately to mind. And of course we can't leave out BushWanker in the dumb count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No, the dumbest people can post the dumbest statements with no problem.  l

  Paul and Strife come to mind.

See my post today under the "Attempted Intimidation" topic.

It's amazing that this so-called "patriot" doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

"civil liability" ?? That's a laugh. Where's the damages that you would have to prove to a judge you suffered ? This isn't the NY Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

That also does not exclude you from publishing what is factually false as well, Mr. LaClair. Oh and everyone is well aware what your opinion means here. What everyone should do is let Paul LaClair pre-read each of the posts here before they get published so that they are grammatically correct and that they have gone thru the LaClair filtering process so that only the message that they want to hear is published. That is what you are trying to say here. Isn't it? I cannot wait to see how he says this is not correct. The rebuttal of this will emerge. I am sure of it.

I guess it has been a few weeks since he has tried to sue someone so he must be getting itchy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

So, what exactly are you saying, Paul? Are you saying that everytime someone posts something in this site, KOTW will have to check with you first if it okay to post? Because I assume he doesn't know everything. Well, if he does that, then we will have to check with Mr. P too and everyone who participates in this site, including Strife. Do you see the irony? Is that exactly what you want the Board of Ed. to do? Check with you first to know if it is okay? When things don't go our way, we threat KOTW. Good job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So, what exactly are you saying, Paul? Are you saying that everytime someone posts something in this site, KOTW will have to check with you first if it okay to post? Because I assume he doesn't know everything. Well, if he does that, then we will have to check with Mr. P too and everyone who participates in this site, including Strife. Do you see the irony? Is that exactly what you want the Board of Ed. to do? Check with you first to know if it is okay? When things don't go our way, we threat KOTW. Good job!

He's saying exactly what he said. Someone who publishes false statements is legally responsible for doing it.

Stop reinventing what Paul writes. You don't like the fact that Paszkiewicz made an ass of himself, so you want to blame other people for it. Well, it's not their fault. It's Paszkiewicz's fault.

KOTW's obligation is not to publish statements it knows or has reason to know are false. It's not a matter of checking with Paul, and he never said that. The obligation is to check sources. Paul is right, and not only are you wrong, but you're also completely changing what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That also does not exclude you from publishing what is factually false as well, Mr. LaClair.  Oh and everyone is well aware what your opinion means here.  What everyone should do is let Paul LaClair pre-read each of the posts here before they get published so that they are grammatically correct and that they have gone thru the LaClair filtering process so that only the message that they want to hear is published.  That is what you are trying to say here. Isn't it? I cannot wait to see how he says this is not correct.  The rebuttal of this will emerge. I am sure of it.

I guess it has been a few weeks since he has tried to sue someone so he must be getting itchy again.

Judging from what you're writing here, you're probably sure of a great many things that aren't so. You don't know any of this, you don't speak for everyone here, and what you wrote is not what Paul said. If you can't respond to what he actually said, your argument must be very weak --- but that's obvious from what you did write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"civil liability" ??  That's a laugh. Where's the damages that you would have to prove to a judge you suffered ?  This isn't the NY Times.

He didn't claim to have actionable damages against KOTW. He made a correct statement of the law, and he's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post today under the "Attempted Intimidation" topic.

Uh, considering you too are merely "Guest," that doesn't narrow it down all that much all on its own. The following makes it fairly clear who you are, though. *chuckles*

It's amazing that this so-called "patriot" doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That also does not exclude you from publishing what is factually false as well, Mr. LaClair.  Oh and everyone is well aware what your opinion means here.  What everyone should do is let Paul LaClair pre-read each of the posts here before they get published so that they are grammatically correct and that they have gone thru the LaClair filtering process so that only the message that they want to hear is published.  That is what you are trying to say here. Isn't it?

No.

I cannot wait to see how he says this is not correct.  The rebuttal of this will emerge. I am sure of it.

Well, I'll give you points for being aware of your own idiocy.

I guess it has been a few weeks since he has tried to sue someone so he must be getting itchy again.

Wow, how mature. :P Child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Most respectfully, gentlemen, that does not excuse publishing comments on your site that you know are materially and factually false. Since I don't seem to have made it clear the first time, that could expose you to civil liability. You have a responsibility here, and you're not fulfilling it in my opinion. At least one of you should know that.

So by your way of thinking, every printed word that's not 100% factual is subject to civil liability ?? LOL. Have you ever read the STAR ( Hilliary Clinton is an alien), (Monica (I had Bill's baby) Lewinski). You're a laugh-a-minute, Paulie Baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So by your way of thinking, every printed word that's not 100% factual is subject to civil liability ?? LOL.  Have you ever read the STAR ( Hilliary Clinton is an alien),  (Monica (I had Bill's baby) Lewinski).  You're a laugh-a-minute, Paulie Baby.

Uh oh, 2smart4u's back. Well, at least we'll have something to laugh at once in a while...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by your way of thinking, every printed word that's not 100% factual is subject to civil liability ?? LOL.  Have you ever read the STAR ( Hilliary Clinton is an alien),  (Monica (I had Bill's baby) Lewinski).  You're a laugh-a-minute, Paulie Baby.

I haven't read Star, oh, brilliant one. I'm not surprised you have, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No.

Well, I'll give you points for being aware of your own idiocy.

Wow, how mature. :blush: Child.

You talk of maturity but have to put little smiley faces in all your posts. YOU have to keep that subscript going in each on of your posts because you can't seem to get your point across. And your name calling is definitely a nice sign of your maturity level. You really are a big embarrassment to this town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Uh, considering you too are merely "Guest," that doesn't narrow it down all that much all on its own. The following makes it fairly clear who you are, though. *chuckles*

I guess the people who post as guests retain that to keep their quota downs. Unlike you who have to post their 9.9 posts per day and the only reason you don't get ten a day is because you started late and the KOTW limited you. And tell me Strife767 is better than guest. You make it clear whom you are and are never willing to admit who you are so you have no right to talk ! So just SHUT UP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 9 2007, 08:31 AM)

As I recall it, the school would not allow students to wear shorts until after a certain date. Meanwhile, the girls were wearing skirts, which exposed every bit as much leg. One day the weather was unseasonably warm. So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt. Horror of horrors that anyone in administration would get the point, chuckle with bemusement and reconsider the rule --- or maybe some of them did. We have met educators in the Kearny school system who do get it.

In doing that, Matthew wasn't violating any rule or policy. (What if he had worn a kilt?) He was making a point. Did he hurt anyone? Disrupt anything? Step back from your assumptions and think. That's how we trained him, but what you don't get is that training is a method, much like science. When someone is trained to think for himself, he takes it in his own direction.

In the sixties, people understood the importance of challenging rules and assumptions. It was a turbulent time, but it was also the time in which our country began to take the rights of African Americans and other minorities seriously for the first time in our history. It's always more convenient and easier to go along, and people who don't will always be criticized, especially by the narrow-minded. But if we really value the individual, we will understand the importance of using humor on occasion to make a point. I have to admit, I wouldn't have thought of it.

Now you are trying to get someone in the Observer by the name of Vic Torrini to apologize for stating a comment that he said that Paul never said. Then he felt the urge to make a formal apology saying that he felt he had to apologize too poor Mr. LaClair for his mistake? What mistake did he make? Paul posted it here too and I just copied and pasted it so I wouldn't get it wrong.

I checked both the local and larger Yellow pages telephone books, on Yahoo.Com people search, and 411.com search and for someone so outspoken you would think that at least he would have a telephone. But no one with that name exists. Just makes me as well as others wonder? This guy would do anything keep this quiet. This reminds me a lot of Hillary and the Whitewater deals. There was an interesting documentary on HBO which reminded me a lot of this. It dealt with a child's inability to conform to society and finding ways to get the approval of his parents by doing absurd things to get attention because his parents were too busy to notice it. This was just my observation but the similarities were astonishing. If anyone knows the exact name of that show I would like to find out so that it could be shared here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...