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

The element of doubt.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

::Before another flame war starts concerning the tragedy in Bhopal, I am starting research to find some 'objective' opinions on the subject. The 'independent' paper I had read a few years ago, may have been sponsored by UCC. It seemed objective at the time and may still be, however allow me a chance to look further into this... thank you... carry on.::

"Those you have mentioned emptyhead were financial disasters."


Blickybadger, they were not just financial disasters. If they were they would not have rated a mention. Capitalism spews up financial disasters every day. Those mentioned were examples of the worst excesses of cpitalism. Enron, Worldcom and Xerox were blatant frauds, in which a lot of innocent people lost a lot of money, livliehoods, jobs, pensions. A devestating example of how capitalism is allowed to run wild and create innocent victims.

The Ford Pinto was a distasterous design that was sponteneously exploding and killing its occupants at an alarming rate. Ford did nothing about it for a long time because it was cheaper to pay compensation to the families of the victims than to recall the car and fix its problems.

This site would be banned in the USA that is for sure!

The hell it would!!! If anything h2g2 is MUCH more restrictive on speech than many sites from the US. We let any yahoo with a keyboard go on and on with whatever blather they want to here. Pretty much as long as there's no kiddie porn involved it's up to only the ISPs discretion.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Well, I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say, but the moderation makes a point.

This post has been removed.

i think that moderation is a good idea because it has stopped many sites from being closed, but abuse of this power is truly a dangerous issue for free speech. you know, i think that since free speech was first officially stated in the american constitution and that they first introduced moderation as well, maybe the thing that is wrong with them is that their politicians strive with their obsession for control as well as with the maintenance of the ambitions of their creators, which could say a lot about americans and heir governing bodies.

i think that moderation is a good idea because it has stopped many sites from being closed, but abuse of this power is truly a dangerous issue for free speech. you know, i think that since free speech was first officially stated in the american constitution and that they first introduced moderation as well, maybe the thing that is wrong with them is that their politicians strive with their obsession for control as well as with the maintenance of the ambitions of their creators, which could say a lot about americans and their governing bodies.

Not another delinquent please!

sorry, i thought that this was the what's wrong with americans thread, even though it could be a valuable contribution to this thread, because our administrators, the guys above the italics, are facing the same problem without knowing that they should be striving for neutrality instead of for control.

This post has been removed.

i've been hearing about that the whole day long. what's been happening out there.

I'm not against moderation. I think for the most part it makes things more pleasant around here. There have been instances where I wouldn't personally have applied moderation where it has been applied. The previous posting is an example because I truly had no idea what it was trying to say. My point is that folks on the right of the pond tend to think that things get 'banned' all the time here in the states... It doesn't happen. There's no official entity that has a power to 'ban' anything. The biggest threat to the publics free speech is the public. At the drop of a hat (or a neckline or waistband, whatever) certain PRIVATE organisations will promote boycotts to try to curtail free speech. That happens all the time with varying results. Usually it increases audiences. The closest thing to that I can think of is the MPAA rating system and the distribution process of films. If a film has 'questionable' material in it the MPAA will give it an NC-17 rating which restricts the movies audience to those over 17 yrs. However the threat of this is enough, because of the limited release in theatres through the so-called bible belt states, for the studios to 'usually' edit the film. (Eyes Wide Shut and Trainspotting are examples) Bertolluci's film 'The Dreamers' luckily will remain intact and be released with an NC17 rating (I'm very happy and will go see it for this reason alone). However, there is NOT some government agency restricting the content of films or websites in respect to free speech unless there is child porn in them. Of course they may be subject to litigation and other criminal liabilities....

Anyway while I've been ranting away I see that there have been some new posts so I'll stop here.

No the fact is that these folks are as thick as a brick. They're own petty egos come before commonsense.

count zero, thank you for deigning to talk to me. i was only making an informed guess on what happens in the american political system and i was not counting on the fact that there were people who were actually infringing their own political rights. now that i have realised what really happens, why doesn't the government ban extremist associations who actually try to stop free speech? That sounds like a short-term arrangement, but it could help individuals grasp the full potential of their own civil rights.

and oetzi, they are not thick as bricks, they are responding to one of our most basic instincts that consist in following a crowd or a leader.it can happen to any of us.

Yeah like they did with Hitler......

I think the point you're missing is that this site is run under the aegis of the BBC, which has certain rules and policies to maintain. When it was a free entity under DNA control, the rules were a little freer (but still moderated). The BBC, to it's credit, took it over (the alternative was that it would have died completely), but it is necessarily constrained by the rules that apply to all BBC sites.

If someone has the money and resources to take it independent again, by all means contact the BBC and make an offer. Otherwise, deal with it.

Now, back to the point...what's wrong with Americans? They try to take over WWWA threads and rename them WWW HOOTOOERS!!!