something positive: archive

Now this is something I have seen first hand, and I agree, it is pretty much bullshit, people making shit up to try and further there own petty causes.

something positive: archive

"The True Story Behind This Mostly True Comic

May 24, 2003

Before I begin, NO, I'm not bashing Christians. I'm ranting on people who don't back up their arguments.

In June of 2000, I found a typically over-the-top "why roleplaying games are evil" article which cited kids who played them murdering others and committing suicide. Now, let's be honest - if that shit happened in our media-driven society, wouldn't it be all over the news? But what made me particularly annoyed was the fact was no where in the bibliography were the sources of these "facts."

So I emailed the minister in charge of the site - and yes, my original email was REALLY testy. And while he didn't say the idea was "stupid," he did deny there was any such article on his site. (Yes, I did remove his email address - HOWEVER, it's not hard to find if you REALLY want to discuss this with him - the URL is left in the emails. However, if you do, please don't flame, attack or threaten him - be better than that. My original email is very aggressive and, if I knew then what I knew now, it would have been calmer. I was polite, but polite with an edge of wanting a reason to jump at the recipient, which is inappropriate and incidentally, I don't normally consider posting private emails as being polite so I generally don't, so this shouldn't end up as a frequest thing): "
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05242003.shtml

Terms of Use

Terms of Use

And they wonder why the FTC wants to shut them down. I mean come on
with crap like this

---
V -The user understands and acknowledges that the application and associated components may communicate from time to time with Odysseus Marketing, Inc server systems and/or that of its partners, and gives express permission for said communications and data transmissions of any and all types used by the application and any associated components.

VI -The user understands, acknowledges and agrees that the application and associated components may alter Internet browsing and/or computer user experiences in a manner acceptable to Odysseus Marketing Inc, in its sole discretion, including but not limited to, search engine query results, display of pop-up window messages, highlighting and hyperlinking of words on web pages, redirection of error message pages, changing of user home page, addition of bookmarks to user's browser, and/or other alterations/modifications.

VII -The user understands, acknowledges, and gives express permission for the application and/or associated components to collect personal information, including, but not limited to, name, demographic data, interests, profession, education, marital status, sex, age, income, and any other information Odysseus Marketing, Inc. decides to collect regarding user, at its sole discretion.

VIII -The user understands, acknowledges, and gives express permission for the application and/or associated components to collect information and data regarding Internet activity, including web sites visited, search queries conducted, applications installed and used, files present on user's hard drive or system, transactions conducted, and any other behavioral data deemed necessary by Odysseus marketing, Inc in its sole discretion.

IX -User understands, acknowledges, and gives express permission for the use of any data collected by Odysseus Marketing Inc.as it sees fit, including the sharing, rental, or sale of any of said data or any portion thereof to any entity at the sole discretion of Odysseus Marketing, Inc. User expressly indemnifies and holds harmless Odysseus Marketing Inc. from any liability or consequence arising out of the possession, use, sale, or transfer of said data, and grants the ownership of any said collected data to Odysseus Marketing, Inc, including the rights to transfer ownership to another entity at any time for any reason. User understands and acknowledges that the permission granted for collection and use of data is irrevocable and survives any removal of the application and associated components.

----

Is it any wonder why they got busted.

I think a We Will do what we want to YOUR computer policy is a better name for it.
Or maybe a Give US control of YOUR computer agreement.

COTSE-I have no such right

Not my original thoughts, they belong to Steve over at COTSE, but I agree completely.


so sayeth John


COTSE-I have no such right: "I do not have a right not to be offended. If speech offends me I do not have a right to ban it. If a thought offends me I do not have a right to claim that it should not be expressed. Yet all this politically correct bullshit is showing me that this is untrue, that if someone finds it offensive then it should be banned. This is wrong.

Too much concern is being placed upon 'is it offensive to anyone'. This entire approach falls apart fast if you try to apply it fairly. If the hypothetical 'they' have a right not to be offended then I must have that same right, correct? Well, that is good because I'm offended when someone else takes offense at something.

Oops, instant 'I'm offended' checkmate. Who counts more, the person offended at something or me offended at him being offended? I quickly find out it is not me. As a heterosexual white male minority I have no rights and so I am usually just ignored. But wait, that's not applying it fairly.

Ok, so I do not have the right to never have my beliefs challenged. I do not have the right to never be offended by anything. But if that is true then neither does anyone else. Why? Because there is no such right that can be fairly applied. If I find something offensive, I can speak out in opposition to it or I can ignore it, but I could not in any fairness ban it without stepping on someone else's rights.

The world is a massive mixture of cultures, beliefs, and ideals, so many differences that everything is offensive to someone somewhere. If everyone was given the right to never be offended it would mean that no belief or culture could ever be challenged. This is because if applied fairly it would mean 'I'm offended' checkmate nearly every time.

For example, I'm offended by little unidentified red things in macaroni salad and I think they should be banned. Even if I did have that right, I wouldn't be able to ban it anyway. Because certainly someone out there would claim that any macaroni salad without little uniden"

COTSE-What happened to my country?

Yet another I can side with.

COTSE-What happened to my country?: "What Happened To My Country?

Yes, it's time for another rant. Americans are showing themselves to be a weak people, it's pitiful. We are willingly trashing our own rights in the name of protection from terrorists. Not for protection, just for the idea of it. What happened to the image of a bunch of American rednecks not afraid of a damn thing, the 'if it bleeds it can die' group. What happened to those people? When did we all become such easily lead fearful sheep? Why are we giving away our rights in the name of protection, especially when we appear to be doing it out of fear and effectively just throwing them away?

Do you want protection from terrorism? Then just be aware. Increase your awareness of your surroundings. Stop going through every day in a self-absorbed cloud. Wake up and watch for the unusual. Did someone set down a bag on a bus and walk away quickly? Report it right away. Someone acting funny? Take notice and do something. Throwing away your rights willy nilly because someone told you that if you did they'd protect you is not the right way. It's not bringing you safety and they don't come back as easy as they go. It's far easier to get a bill passed giving away freedom than it is to get one passed granting it. This is because power granted is power used and power used is power kept. That is why power must have proper checks and balances, if not it becomes power abused. Wake up, we are removing those checks and balances. This power is being misused already and they still want more.

Sure they want more, they wanted more to track 60's radicals, then to stop organized crime, then drugs, then pedophiles (think of the children), but none of that worked. Then came terrorists and you freaked out and willingly gave away those rights you denied them before. They've always wanted more. They've always desired to remove those checks and balances because they get in the way. It's so much easier to chase bad guys when you can sneak into their "

COTSE-Sorry, can't do that, it might offend someone!

Brilliant Rant, I can totally agree with this one

COTSE-Sorry, can't do that, it might offend someone!: "Sorry, can't do that, it might offend someone!
Pardon me while I launch into another rant. This current trend of banning things because they might offend someone is really beginning to piss me off. This is the USA. This is a country founded upon freedom of expression. This is a country that guarantees freedom of speech in its constitution. But apparently that means absolutely nothing if someone complains about it.

Today's rule is that if it might offend someone, ban it. I, for one, am getting fed up with this attitude. Censorship is still censorship even when you are censoring so that you don't offend. I would go as far as saying that censorship is even worse when you are censoring because it might offend someone. This is because the only speech that needs protecting is offensive speech. If you cease protecting that, you may as well remove the first amendment.

That is basically what has been done. We've negated the first amendment and it did not take a bully to do it, rather it only took a whiner. When did the whiners gain control and why do we let them have control? If something said or displayed offends someone, tough! People will get offended about anything and everything, we cannot cater to those who whine about being offended or we will end up banning everything.

Case in point, at an elementary school in Maplewood, New Jersey they canceled a Saint Patricks day party in a grade school because one (1) single parent complained*. One person complained and because of that the entire celebration was canceled. A better solution would have been to tell that one whining parent to keep her child home that day if it offended her.

Another case in point, a worker in Richmond City Hall was told to take down an American flag because a few people complained about it. They said that it represented a war that offended them. Wrong! It represents the country they live in. It represents the government which employs them. It represents the f"