Forum exposure

Post removed in case it offends anyone who is pro USA

Chill guys, good and bad in ALL Nations on the planet

There was 57 nations viewed this site last month,hands across the sea:)-D

Umlilo,

Knock that chip off your shoulder pal...I am on your side.

My point in having posters use their own identities is to give the forum more credibility, not to restrict people from participating.

Can you imagine a country's articles of incorporation featuring names like BetMyLungs or AllJockeysSuck, instead of real names?

As for the inner workings and political machinations of South African racing, I don't think it is my place to comment on these.

But, as a suggestion on how to go about achieving your goals, I tried to make some inroads.

By the way, what in the name of clarity does this mean?

"Yes, I studied how one is stereotyped by the Americans, James Bond and the 'others' is relevant; good and evil, with us or not with us; angels and devils....! ?

Are you referring to the fictional character James Bond?

Please explain. If you like you can just e mail me at valorific@aol.com if you would rather not post your reply.

Thanks

@ Barry Irvin:

Yes, James Bond, that archetypal hero hombre - had to study 3 of his books for my final year; was so put off...... even forgot the author!

However, coming down to earth;

Yes, live postings for one, (unedited) can become problematic for the webmaster/owner in terms of certain laws relating to defamation, promoting of hatred, racial extremities, profanities, etc., unlike newspapers where the Editor decides what to publish, and the radio, where they have time-delays, etc or, can cut one off.

Most sites insert a disclaimer and reserve the right to remove an offensive post (like CnC) earlier here. Nonetheless, to impose any pre-conditions on posters will chase most away and would be self-defeating; if you open up a debating forum, let all sides be heard out (or else, your credibility is suspect)!

I have been reading some of the comments on the SA The Times Live site which have really shoclked me! Behind their pseudonyms, there is so much of trash that is spat out is unreal, especially when it comes to racial issues.

On one of the blogs, a (I assume) South African black flays into African Americans as 'niggers', who have no right of return to Africa as they do not speak any indigenous language, are Christians who belittle Africanism, conduct themsleves as 'superior' to their African cousins, they Uncle Toms, etc (like Obama)!

Therefore, it's not in my or your hands to direct IT traffic and/or discussions; you shut one, another 10 open!

The final decision is not even in the hands of the owner; it's in that of the visitor.

If he goes, so does your traffic and rating (especially if the site depends on advertising revenue)!

I have 2 favourite american words....

1: Vietnam
2: wikileaks


both these words will be carved into the history books of the land of the free and the loud......

What Vietnam and Wikileaks has to with this thread is beyond me, this could only come from someone with a simple, narrow minded and bigoted view of the world.

Barry, I understand your point that people would be more responsible with their posts if they weren't anonymous. But surely if someone makes a valid point it remains valid no matter whether they are anonymous or not. In saying that if someone makes a blatant derogatory or insulting comment it can simply be deleted by the site administrator and that user can be thrown off the site.

But lets be real, even if we all put our actual names on the site I highly doubt we would ever be able to engage the powers the be into any debate on a public forum. I think Dave and Hibby has done a great job in cleaning up the site nevertheless and the balance is just about right, save for the occasional idiotic comment from time to time...

When a drunk hobo (tramp, vagabond, homeless etc) criticizes a rich man...

surely there are 2 schools of thought :

1. the criticism must be addressed as it could be valid.....one must look past the person uttering the criticism (even if he is a hobo)
and
2. the criticism will be ignored as it comes from a hobo (who gives him the right to criticize...)

Based on the above, the current RSA authorities seemingly have chosen the 2nd option..
Hence Barry is correct that the RSA authorities will not engage in debate as in their mind (option 2) ..is the strategy

However,
My opinion (I THINK - before I have another Sue on my case)
If the criticism comes from a RICH man (moral values never are not necessary), the current RSA authorities will engage.
I will go that far to say that even if an INTELLECTUAL ( PROF PHD MBA ADVOCATE ) from a leading institution had to criticize the current RSA authorities, they would not engage in debate....as option 2 is the STRATEGY..

Hence, if a rich man was to post under his own name, the criticism would be valued.
Suddenly the authorities would take note and engage in debate.
However the debate would be focused on "how much can we sue him for"...because of his criticism...and they real issue would be forgotten..

Hence I see no reason as to why you should not post under your own names to attract the following...
1. Sue...and thats not a her
2. insults in public as we now know who you are

Using a alias allows one to have the freedom to view and post an unbiased view ...allow me to explain
one can stand back as a separate entity from the alias, much like an actor playing a character in a movie..
the alias becomes a character of its own.
insults, criticism etc are then directed at the alias, and the person does not take it personally, which in turn allows the person to reply in an open minded debate.
Much in the same way as an actor, the person acting does not take the insults personally (take old JR form Dallas)

and to complete the circle : -

1. the criticism must be addressed as it could be valid.....one must look past the person uttering the criticism (even if he is a hobo)

when the RA, PHUM and GC exco mature to this level, we will see progress..???

@ANDREWEST:


'Much in the same way as an actor, the person acting does not take the insults personally (take old JR form Dallas) ...'

Well illustrated... viva! (tu)

Herein, I quote Oscar Wilde:
/I love acting. It is so much more real than life.'

@Saksy :

Recently, there was a huge uporar about the proposed Media Tribunal, which is exactly what was being suggested; control the 'trouble-makers' and coat every thread with sugar!

I don't recall anyone raising that issue and supporting it- why such hypocrisy?

You observe 'But lets be real, even if we all put our actual names on the site I highly doubt we would ever be able to engage the powers the be into any debate on a public forum'.

Thats' also the point I have made; 'questions were poised at the RA (nobody asked it to come here!). They answered a few digestible questions.... and the thread is gone... the last rites?

So, let's get on with acting.... that's real!

()

Unreal.