User talk:Juxo/Blog/July2004 - Revision history

Jukeboksi: blanked

2004-07-27T10:38:48Z

blanked

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 27 July 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~''Please explain where there is [[hate speech]] in here:''~~

	:Worship your [[GodKing]] elsewhere. Wales knows full well there is no case, because every word said here is either clearly an opinion, or provably true. Wales is trying to get you to believe he has a [[libel]] case so that he can eventually [[libel chill]] all [[Consumerium Services]] when they tell the truth about [[Bomis]].

	~~::It was in your previous edit. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 13:54, 26 Jul 2004 (EEST)~~

	:Since [[libel chill]] is his standard method, are you supposed to be grateful? You can't be sued for [[libel]], as what is said is true, anyway. Don't wallow in the mud to that swine Mr. Wales, he has engaged in plenty of real [[libel]] himself. We don't allow [[outing]] or [[spun threat]]s here, so the [[worst practices]] just don't happen.

	:::"Swine" is [[name-calling]], not [[hate speech]]. The latter is a crime in many countries. The former is not. It was part of a [[conceptual metaphor]] re: "wallow" anyway, implying that Mr. Wales wallows plenty himself and ought not to be kowtowed to. It is totally true that he has employed [[libel chill]] as a method - he admitted it on his own [[vile mailing list]]. And hopefully this is still true:

	~~:We don't allow [[outing]] or [[spun threat]]s here, so the [[worst practices]] just don't happen.~~

	:::[[Trolls]] are mean and nasty but they recognize the limits of the law and have never actually threatened violence. Meanwhile many people threaten both violence and legal actions that amount to violent suppression, against them - quite a reactionary response to simple [[name-calling]], which is itself quite a limited and fair response to [[libel]].

142.177.106.177: bah: name-calling is NOT the same thing as "hate speech", and claiming it is, is sysopism

2004-07-27T06:20:02Z

bah: name-calling is NOT the same thing as "hate speech", and claiming it is, is sysopism

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:20, 27 July 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	::It was in your previous edit. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 13:54, 26 Jul 2004 (EEST)		::It was in your previous edit. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 13:54, 26 Jul 2004 (EEST)

			:Since [[libel chill]] is his standard method, are you supposed to be grateful? You can't be sued for [[libel]], as what is said is true, anyway. Don't wallow in the mud to that swine Mr. Wales, he has engaged in plenty of real [[libel]] himself. We don't allow [[outing]] or [[spun threat]]s here, so the [[worst practices]] just don't happen.

			:::"Swine" is [[name-calling]], not [[hate speech]]. The latter is a crime in many countries. The former is not. It was part of a [[conceptual metaphor]] re: "wallow" anyway, implying that Mr. Wales wallows plenty himself and ought not to be kowtowed to. It is totally true that he has employed [[libel chill]] as a method - he admitted it on his own [[vile mailing list]]. And hopefully this is still true:

			:We don't allow [[outing]] or [[spun threat]]s here, so the [[worst practices]] just don't happen.

			:::[[Trolls]] are mean and nasty but they recognize the limits of the law and have never actually threatened violence. Meanwhile many people threaten both violence and legal actions that amount to violent suppression, against them - quite a reactionary response to simple [[name-calling]], which is itself quite a limited and fair response to [[libel]].

Jukeboksi at 10:54, 26 July 2004

2004-07-26T10:54:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:54, 26 July 2004
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:Worship your [[GodKing]] elsewhere. Wales knows full well there is no case, because every word said here is either clearly an opinion, or provably true. Wales is trying to get you to believe he has a [[libel]] case so that he can eventually [[libel chill]] all [[Consumerium Services]] when they tell the truth about [[Bomis]].		:Worship your [[GodKing]] elsewhere. Wales knows full well there is no case, because every word said here is either clearly an opinion, or provably true. Wales is trying to get you to believe he has a [[libel]] case so that he can eventually [[libel chill]] all [[Consumerium Services]] when they tell the truth about [[Bomis]].

			::It was in your previous edit. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 13:54, 26 Jul 2004 (EEST)

142.177.109.64: where is the "hate speech"? are we degrading into a Wikipedia mailing list here, where everything GodKings don't like is considered illegal regardless of the real law?

2004-07-26T02:01:59Z

where is the "hate speech"? are we degrading into a Wikipedia mailing list here, where everything GodKings don't like is considered illegal regardless of the real law?

New page

''Please explain where there is [[hate speech]] in here:''

:Worship your [[GodKing]] elsewhere. Wales knows full well there is no case, because every word said here is either clearly an opinion, or provably true. Wales is trying to get you to believe he has a [[libel]] case so that he can eventually [[libel chill]] all [[Consumerium Services]] when they tell the truth about [[Bomis]].