h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've seen no evidence of him attempting to yikes posts, or even asking people not to post in his space, or even asking people to keep things on topic in a thread.

So, trying to limit others freedom of speech, no, I don't think so. Just because he won't engage in terms people would necesarily like doesn't mean he is attempting to limit others freedom of speech.

NB - I say this in the full knowledge that this community is not reflective of life in general and whether or not he yikes posts here is not inecessarily indicative of whther or not, given the means, he would limit other choices.

Well, I don't see how he can limit other's freedom of speech. He doesn't run h2g2, he isn't PM, so tere's not really much he can do...

Yes I see what you both mean, but in terms of “you’ll burn in hell’ response type stuff , or ‘you have no knowledge to be able to say that .’
Perhaps it’s not freedom of speech I’m thinking about, but freedom of thought, expressed.
It seems to me that Justin plays a very good naughty little boy who gets his attentions from being disagreeable. It’s fine for him to have his freedom of speech but I wonder what would happen if he never got a single response again

I don't think he would if he could- all his believes clearly suggest that this world is rotten and evil, no good can come from it, and most of us are all going to burn in Hell anyway . This world only matters if a person is using it to do god's will. Since you can't *force* someone to believe, I don't see that Justin would see much point in curtailing our free speech- we're unbelievers, we don't ammter, we're going to burn in Hell. Removing our right to free speech won't change that.

I think that just about sums it up...

After you with the red hot poker, KA.

Swap you for the enforced Barry Manilow listenings?

Ah, you won't have to swap for that, you know. Remember that mystery cd you won for 'Whose Desk Is It Anyway?'...

. No, scratch that,

Desks?

Sorry GreyDesk, not you

Ah, that's alright then

* settles back down *

Blues:

No, actually, being rude *is* a choice. I make the choice when somebody accuses me of doing something I haven't done:

"Hoo started ranting about him (on 3 or more different conversations now I think)".

It would have taken next to no physical effort and comparatively little time to check that "fact" and discover it to be false. But "Lady in a tree" didn't bother. She just characterised me as someone who has "ranted about Justin" and started threads about him left right and centre. She further implored me to start no "more", reinforcing the false impression that I've started ANY apart from this one - and I haven't ranted about Justin here, just asked a straightforward question and got lots of encouraging answers.

Is it really too much to ask that people don't lie about me in public?

And is it really so bad to be rude to people who've lied about you?

People who could easily have checked the facts, if they could have been bothered? I'm NOT rude to everyone. I could probably give you a list of two dozen people to whom I've spoken a lot and to whom I've NEVER been rude. Coincidentally, you might find that none of them have ever been rude to me, told me what I think, or lied about me. I'm funny like that.

H.

It still takes little effort, and makes a better impression, if you're polite. People would respond better to you in the futuire, for a start.

Do you really think Lady in a Tree was 'lying' about you or was simply mistaken. I'd bet it was the latter.

But you are right, it's your choice.

Well I reckon there is room for everyone and all forms of beliefs and attitudes provided no one is injured or dead.Sorry if I've offended anyone but I'm finding this thread tedious so I shall be staying away from it in future.I will however continue to use every and all cliches available to me because it's a free world.

Incog.

JtP limiting my freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Most certainly not! And then Blues Shark comes up with: "I say this in the full knowledge that this community is not reflective of life in general and whether or not he yikes posts here is not inecessarily indicative of whther or not, given the means, he would limit other choices."

Elsewhere he's been compared to fundamentalists who force others to do things, who try to change school curricula, and who 'ram their beliefs down other people's throats'

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that Justin is like that at all! He's not in anyone's face, and he doesn't seem inclined to be. It's totally consistent with his stated beliefs to *not* try to change the world or anybody's mind. The only activity that interests him seems to be proclaiming the 'Truth' as he sees it. He's not even out to 'convince' anybody of it; that's up to God. If he thought his task were to persuade people to be Christians, then he might bother with something like, oh, communication skills. He doesn't. He's rather clear on that point.

People's association of him with these other types of fundamentalists, who try to bring about change in the world, strikes me as ill-considered prejudice.

If anyone shows me a thread that runs counter to my interpretation, then I'll certainly reconsider.



On a different note, Blues Shark.... why should an impartial observer find your gadfly-like dogging of Hoovooloo particularly different from his gadfly-like dogging of his pet fundies, if that's what he seems to be doing? (dog: vb. To track or trail persistently)

(H - note that I worded the above so as not to make any claims about what you actually are doing - I want to stay on that never-been-rude list! )

"Do you really think Lady in a Tree was 'lying' about you or was simply mistaken. I'd bet it was the latter."

Does it *matter*? The fact is she repeated a falsehood about me.

You know a little about the law. Is "I wasn't lying, I was mistaken." a defence against a charge of libel? (and remember, it's a given that what's been said is NOT true). I am not a lawyer (IANAL, great acronym, huh?), but I don't think it is. If you say something defamatory about someone else, and it's true, then tough. If you say something defamatory about someone else, and it's FALSE - then ignorance is not a defence. It is the responsibility of the sayer to check their facts before disparaging someone else, isn't it?

Not that I'm suggesting this was libel. In order to have one's good reputation damaged, one must first have a good reputation - Gillian Taylforth learned that to her cost. I don't think I have what could be described by anyone as a "good reputation" here. But that's no excuse for people to make it worse, I think.

H.

Interesting recent example: I've recently heard that a certain public figure had a fling with a certain other public figure's sister.

I've also heard that this is not the case.

I've also heard that it is not legal to even repeat the ALLEGATION for fear of being sued. Laws against defamation are pretty heavy, huh? Wonder why... could be because if someone says something in a place like this, someone else reads it and assumes it's true, and it gets repeated, and pretty soon, everyone believes it. I've seen it happen on here more than once...

H.

Since you can't *force* someone to believe
So you don’t believe in brainwashing?

Brainwashing is real, but you'd have to be *considerably* more skillful at it than JtP is to do it over an Internet message board.

The written word is strong enough for subtle brainwashing.
Read any red top newspapers lately !
Justin shows many signs that this has been done to him.
Count the repetitions in what he writes.
Ok you and I we’re discerning adults, but maybe just maybe there is just one poor soul out there, beginning to think that they might burn in hell, for some perceived sin or other – homosexuality perhaps or hey even being a woman might do it.
After web conversations with a fundamental Muslim, I really can’t see much difference between the tone JtP takes and theirs. Note I use the word tone, although the complete misery of life on earth as was depicted by both who believed that we are all born into sin and only the chosen few will get past the pearly gates.
It can be a very short step from proclaiming oneself the wod of God to claiming to be the hand of God in action.