I have a problem here. The terms Moderation and Censorship sounds different, but are essentially the same. So lets say a local parish minister/priest is censoring movies to be shown, and he does not like scenes with kisses, he will remove them, firstly because he has no experience of these things (mainly because of his vows of chastity), so the local boys being denied these pleasures, as was their fathers, go out and drink and fight (the Irish example). I come from a country with a long history of censorship, where it was run by small minded people, who included small minded politicians. If this minister/priest had a happy life with his wife and family, and was an example of how things should be, he probably would have left the kisses in and taught people the bad things about fighting, drinking is not the main problem, as most people who are normal can do it without fighting.
The point of good experience is the key factor, as we all have a choice about who we would like to be, and if left to our own devices, we would choose the non-fighting route, ie we have to learn about love, without the minister/priest cutting the scene. You cannot shield children from life, but they have to learn what it is all about, the way to do this is to rather teach the difference between right and wrong, and this can only be done through education, not only at schools but at home, and by example.
The relevance of all this in this discussion, is that the person who does the moderation, must have the experience, and not piety, to see the discussion in the relevant way, without being pernicious. The nature of projects normally lends itself to some serious discussions, and the saying is "If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Regards
Member for
20 years 1 month
Member for20 years1 month
Submitted by Andy McLean-Reid on Tue, 2005-10-18 07:09
I am a former moderator on a Christian message board. Believe me some of the posting was very near the knuckle, and to disagree or criticise somebody often equated to a damnation of their very core beliefs, the most deeply held and personal feelings.
We had some posters who were atheist, some agnostic, some Catholic and some Protestant, from all corners of the globe. We had some who deliberately tried to disrupt the board, either because they felt it was God’s duty or they felt aggressive towards the Christian faith.
It was a nightmare to moderate, we had a moderation team of 5-10 volunteers who had guidelines to adhere to, which were publicly advertised. More often than not we simply asked whether someone was in breach of the rules they agreed to adhere to when they registered (much like here) or if they were damaging to the overall welfare of the site (much like here).
For me it is all a question of integrity, I agreed to certain conditions when I signed up to PP, if I fail to live up to them I would expect to be admonished.
PP needs moderators, but the best moderation is done when nobody realises that anything has been done. PM’s can be used to good effect I have found, if a mod PM’s you pointing out a problem you are most likely to do what you can to put it right.
Can we edit our existing posts? That might be a useful tool.
[edit] just realised we can :-)
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Tue, 2005-10-18 06:26
But does a child come out of the womb, "with that intrinsic knowledge" of knowing right from wrong. Some one argue either way, and either way it is difficult to prove or disprove. Every culture that has existed, has had its time, and has died or not survived, that is another arguement.
Some cultures last longer than others. Some have adapted and changed. So when is a culture not a culture any longer?
For example, lets take "the steriotype" of "the irish culture". Drinking & fighting? might have been percieved as part of, or the culture. We might take it now, that this is changing. Thus has the culture died or been lost? or is it just changing? Dont really know how this is measured.
Although "fighting & drinking" may have been taken as social norm. and a way of life. But believe me, as a child although it may have been tolerated, I knew as a child, as young as 5 that is was not "right", well for me anyhow. Many of / if not all of my "Irish peers" would agree with me.
Good discussion though,
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Mon, 2005-10-17 15:32
The value of moderation has some value, but when it becomes censorship, it has no place in this world. The problem with both censorship, and moderation, is that the same ignoramuses vie for the positions, and it is difficult to select the right candidates, ie the ignoramuses versus the genuinely concerned. We live in a world where getting the job done is of the utmost importance, and do not need these extra constraints. Rude behaviour is sometimes the order of the day, to get the job done, but not always acceptable.
Why not just wait for a complaint and look at it, in contrast to these constant deletions and comments by the so-called moderators?
I would suggest you all watch a movie, " Il Nuova CINEMA PARADISO" to get a grasp of the problem.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 1 month
Member for20 years1 month
Submitted by Larry Blankenship on Mon, 2005-10-17 13:50
Right and wrong are only absolutes within a context of personal belief or societal norms. Some societies (the US is one) dont hold children responsible for their actions for some crimes as they are believed to be unable to understand the difference between the two. If right and wrong were absolutes, then any child would come out of the womb with that intrinsic knowledge. Right and wrong are not instinctual, except to the extent that humans are social animals and will generally find the most advantageous societal norm that allows the culture to grow and flourish. Societies and cultures that dont succeed in that process generally dont survive. A culture where might makes right, and killing others was not considered a problem wouldnt survive, simply because people would tend to leave that culture at the very get go for their own safety.
This is a nature vs nurture argument, and Im inclined on the side of nurture from a strictly logical/empirical viewpoint.
Personally, I do believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, but I also recognize that those are a function of my upbringing, rather than any intrinsic knowledge on my part.
Larry
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Mon, 2005-10-17 13:44
But cannot concurr, that right and wrong are a societal construct. Breaking "the law" of "a societal construct" is not necesarilly right or wrong. If we say that to break the law of a society is wrong, then that is a societal construct. "The society" concerned have deemed that breaking "that law" is wrong. But breaking the law as far as right or wrong in itself is concerned, is a different issue.
For example Planning Planet may have "Laws or Rules", but is breaking those "Laws or Rules", right or wrong?
I might suggest that, if one did break these "Laws or Rules", it would have very little impact upon ones conscience (However that might be defined).
Killing someone or lets say, even executing or torture for that matter are looked on by some societies as just social norm. or a social construct?
I might suggest that, although the law might not persecute those participating in such acts, that perhaps their conscience may tell them something different. And I am not saying that doing the above is either right or wrong.
But that every Sentient being knows right from wrong.
But I suppose something like this is very difficult to get a grasp on, on a global scale?
Has this confused the issue?
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 1 month
Member for20 years1 month
Submitted by Larry Blankenship on Mon, 2005-10-17 08:40
Right and wrong are a societal construct, however. There are very few behavioral norms beyond sheer survival that occur in every human culture.
Killing another human being is generally considered wrong, but every society has exceptions to that rule, and those exceptions differ from culture to culture.
Stealing is considered wrong, but only in cultures with a concept of individual property.
There are many other examples, and some may be more minor than others, (for example, in some cultures its considered rude to eat in public, in others, its no problem)
A culture, (and I think that applies to forums, also) cannot function without an agreed to set of rules or norms of behavior that allow it to most effectively function for the majority of its members. Without rules of some sort, the members of the culture have no idea how to act, and will simply act according to their upbringing, etc. which may not agree with that of others, especially in a forum like this, where we draw from many places and cultures.
That being said, if we have all agreed to abide by the Forum Rules, we can correct the person who is not abiding by those rules, and then appeal to authority if that person is not getting the idea that their behavior is not acceptable to the culture at large. It isnt that difficult to say to someone that they are being offensive, you just have to be somewhat assertive about what you want without being emotional or stooping to the same tactics.
Larry
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Mon, 2005-10-17 07:45
My view would be that, water can find its own level, given the "freedom" to do so. (Perhaps gravity to is a restriction). Societies are and can be self regulatory. Every sentient being knows the difference between right & wrong. But that of course is a level of utopia (whatever that means).
Politics / Religion / Superstition (Not that these are bad),
can tend to socially distort acceptance & toleration of something that does not feel right or correct to sentient beings.
Thus to me, is hard to distinguish the differences between Democracy & Totalitaranism. A clear or agreed definition of the two, to start with is difficult to establish. And which is better or worse may depend on application as much as intepretation.
Peace,
Darrell
ps. Also have to concurr with Stuart. Although some of my own mail may have been taken in a bad light. Have to admit though, some of this stuff is quite thought provoking & some is just pure shite. But it takes all sorts.
I think that those who make rude and offensive posts ultimately loose themselves credibility. This is a work/profession related site where participants look for genuine assistance on a number of wide ranging topics.
Therefore – unlike the more general type of chat board or blog – there is a certain amount of professional or business respect amongst us all. In my view, those who frequently post rude or offensive messages loose the respect of their peers on PP, as a result of which their posts – even their meaningful ones – are never taken seriously.
If – taking a random example and speaking hypothetically – someone was to accuse me of not having the brains to sustain a subject, decry my Scottish Ancestry and accuse me of not having “…a clue about democracy, or totarilism, (sic)…” , then I would just ignore such ranting because in my view the post itself says more about the intelligence and integrity of the author than I could ever write.
My view is that those who are continually rude and offensive to others on PP simply do themselves a disservice, and they should not be surprised when no one responds to any of their posts. Let them fall into outer space (where they belong) so that the rest of us can benefit from being on Planning Planet!! ;-)
Give a try for one month see what will happen? They already enough to take care them self...only thing i’m afraid is abusing on religon and political...that want very dangerous.
Earlier in this thread the PP Admin team (i.e. not moderators) asked a couple of questions with respect to what goes on in the forum. The following issues have been raised...
If the moderators were not on the case, what should we do to stop people being rude and abusive etc? Would the whole system degenerate? i.e. some good discussion and a percentage of rude back-chat? Are we saying that if no-one removed the odd rude message, would these rude messages would not be posted in the first instance? Or is it OK to have abuse and undue rudeness etc? Or would an un-moderated society be acceptable and productive?
How should this / could this work?
If we have no rules, what would happen?
If we have rules (which we do) surely we should also have a means of making sure people abide by these rules?
Your thoughts on this would be valued.
Best Regards. Happy Planning.
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Sun, 2005-10-16 14:54
Your name belies your ancestry, maybe you are a sassenach, and do not understand what it is all aboout, sorry I have to speak to you in English, but you obviously understand no other language, sorry, with a name like Stuart I might have thought you originated from Scotland, the original bastion of Democracy, and had the brains to sustain the subject. Maybe, you should go out and find some other interest, like building christmas trees and not get involved with serious subjects, by the way Beethoveven would have been seriously pissed of with you, and a few others. Your lack of knowledge of history is conspicuous, and obviates you from this forum. You do not have a clue about democracy, or totarilism, so forget about your opinions, on subject you have no clue about.
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Sun, 2005-10-16 14:35
For consistency you need practice, i.e. you need a "gillea" and you have to do the job, you have to know what your point of reference is, i.e. what is the job about.
What democracy is about is that you can think freely about what you are suppose to do and not worry about the politics of the situation and do not worry unless you have a bunch of idiots working for you.
If you are looking for assistance in moderation, I think you will not have to look very far. Some on this posting, are suggesting or nominating themselves, which is a healthy thing of course.
Personally I think that, to date the forum(s) have been pretty well moderated & tolerated, but that is me. Others of course will not concurr.
We have a vast cross section of opinion and views.
And on fishing, it is easy and fast to learn to fish.
I learnt most of what I know about fishing in a day.
From making a fishing rod, putting together a line, and actually catching a fish. The object being, that you catch a fish, kill it, get & clean it, cook it and eat it.
Was never really into fly fishing, but a couple of friends of mine learnt to tie a fly in a day, and handle a fly rod the following day & were catching trout by the third day.
They must be "the three day experts".........
Am not percieved as a fast learner or anything, in fact in school I excelled at very little, and was held back for a year, because my work was viewed as being poor.
The forum guidelines dont see unreasonable to me. Am I missing something? Which guideline is causing a problem with discussing planning and scheduling?
On the subject of moderators, housekeeping, and maintaining order on a discussion forum...
If the moderators were not on the case, what should we do to stop people being rude and abusive etc? Wouldn’t the whole system degenerate? i.e. some good discussion and a percentage of rude back-chat?
Are we saying that if no-one removed the odd rude message, would they not be posted in the first instance? How should this, could this work? Do we have no rules??
I know that some of the moderators initially offered their time to help run the forum, however, their role now seems to have to involve a large degree of removing rude posts. This does not make them happy.
This is an interesting question. Your collective thoughts would be welcome.
PP Admin Team (Volunteer planners like yourselves).
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Thu, 2005-10-13 16:04
At least you have the decency to think, the moderators believe they have the right to censor anything they dont like. The point is that they have no rights, execpt knocking off degenarates who have no right being on PP. Their problem is that seem to have taken on this role of the KGB, ie wiping anything they do not like. This has always been the problem wherever censure was applied, that the idiots seem to take the positions of censors (moderators) and they inevatiable screw up the system, therefore you need people with vision in these positions. I do not claim to be the ideal moderator, but I can keep a few contractors happy.
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Thu, 2005-10-13 15:38
Is the originator of this thread, I hope I have a say
I believe moderation is a simple way of life
I believe that when you go the whole hog you really believe you can do the job so all you that believe that moderators and the rest can sort out your life let them sort it out!! Because you can’t sort out your own life, that is why you refer to the moderators to protect you. I am using a junior planner to write this post so excuse the spelling, but I believe my junior planner is better than half of you and deserves better job:) just for a laughs, my junior planner cant spell and he is still learning, but he is quite good and he has the capability of learning but remember that he typed this, and this is the basis of democracy.
Any body how wants to learn fly-fishing can learn from my apprentice
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Fri, 2005-10-07 07:55
Cute hoor is a Hiberno-English term used to describe someone who will do whatever it takes to achieve what they want. Usually a cute hoor will not break the law but it is seen as willing to bend and use the law, use people or use situations to come out on top, by pulling dishonest or misleading stunts en route.
In this context cute means cunning, and is a clipped form of acute. The word hoor (pronounced hoo-r) is based on the English word whore, but in the term cute hoor has no sexual connotations.
The term cute hoor is often used as a quasi-affectionate term, for someone whose utter unreliability and untrustworthyness is well known, seen through and treated almost as a joke. Then Irish Tánaiste Brian Lenihan was described as a cute hoor on a Late Late Show TV special about him in 1990 by some of his colleagues and friends, who recounted stories of his unreliability, including promising parents he’d get jobs for their children, then losing the piece of paper on which he’d recorded the details, or making ’spur of the moment’ promises to voters during elections that would be forgotten as quickly as they were thought of. In Lenihan’s case, his cute hoor image came back to haunt him when the question of his trustworthyness and reliability became a central issue in the 1990 presidential election, an election he sensationally lost to Mary Robinson.
Haughey was the Juan Peron of Irish politics. Like the glamorous Argentinian dictator, he inspired a fanatical following with his peculiar blend of nationalist fervour, right-wing views and appeasement of powerful trade union leaders. He was master of the small political gesture - granting tax exemption to artists and free travel to retirees - and was hugely popular. He was also the supreme practitioner of the Irish political art of cute hoorism (a clever whore), slyly outmanoeuvring his opponents with backstage deals. He cultivated his image as the man of power, the man of decision, the very embodiment of the Irish nation.
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Fri, 2005-09-30 06:16
Don’t know if you were referring to Philip or myself (Darrell). You are correct I would suggest, in that point that you have just made. That this forum is titled "Democracy vs Totalitaranism" (Whatever that means), which automatically brings into play the whole "freedom of speech thing", that anyone should get moderated upon, is ironic.
Their is also another expression we have here,
its called "Cute-Hoorism".
And I actually picked it up from overhearing a politician talk. Don’t normally listen much when politicians talk, more fool me. But this expression struck a chord with me.
Does anyone know what it means? or as Planners could ye work it out?
Also remember, "Fulashite", is just an expression used in Ireland by some, to express an opinion about a feeling one has, about some of the discourse carried out by certain people. Again it is a cultural ting.
Slán go fóil,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 4 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Fri, 2005-09-30 03:14
I did experienced some of my post deleted by miderators. I did feel edgy and same like you.
The only difference was that I always recall my previous post
(Product of the French Revolution)
"The Declaration of the Rights of Man
"4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
The limit in PP are the forum rules. The moderators base their actions on the forum rules.
I did not take offence on the actions by the moderator. We will just let the moderators be what they are suppose to be, anyway PP give us the chance to let us be also.
Have a nice weekend.
Charlie
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Tue, 2005-08-23 07:16
Politics & histo-political reference were never a strong point of mine. Am aware of some of the main historiocal events, Irish, European & World. Am certainly no historian. Perhaps there are patterns developing, in developing nations that some are loathe to notice or will not acknowledge. All nations perhaps should be developing??
Might I suggest that their is no intrinsic difference between "Democracy" and "Totalitaranism". But their is a huge difference in the application and the leadershit of any of these types of societal structures. Therein lies the issue.
They have both worked and failed at different times historically. A sudo-type-democracy seems the flavour of the day in western society, with a slight para-noia-semi-police-type-arrangement.
And in school many years ago, we were doing "Ancient History", we read and were told that the Greeks invented democracy?????? Open to re-writing or correction of course.
Might I also say the, the word "Bollocks" in Ireland is seldom taken as an insult or swear word. This is a cultural ting though, so no offence intended.
Respect,
Darrell
Member for
24 years 6 months
Member for24 years6 months
Submitted by William Cormack on Tue, 2005-08-23 04:43
These are the hallmarks of societies which presume itself as the Inventor, Champion and Propagator of “Democracy” as if “Democracy” is end in itself for which Human Being is Created.
Moreover defeat of Napolean in Waterloo by Lord Nelson had nothing to do with “Democracy”. But with Planning a big “Yes”. It was just matter of “Fifteen minute or so” …. I forgot the detail…….
Cheers.
Member for
22 years 6 months
Member for22 years7 months
Submitted by Katalin Hovanyi on Sat, 2005-08-20 02:49
Im reading Michael Moore book "Dude, wheres my country?" Try to read it. I think it is about the democracy. He was able to publish it, but so what. Most of my life I worked for big companies. All over the places restrictions. Try to make a "real" schedule when you are on the contractors side or the clients side. Think about the milestone contracts. Big "democracy" there too. I think we need to discuss this things among us. How to do your job without hurting anybody.
Regards Katalin
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Fri, 2005-08-19 16:49
As an Irishman,it surprises me that you do not know of Patrick Henry, this was a politician of note in America, with simular ideas to most of your countrymen. I hope you do not think Paul Revere is a cigarette. Henry coined the words, "Give me liberty or give me death", theay got so pissed off the threw all the English tea into Boston harbour. This resulted in a war where they kicked the englishs butts.
An interesting point is that the first so-called democracy was Scotland, and then France. But the american Red Indians had figured it out before this, and this accelerated the american style of democracy.
Planners should be living in the future, as that is their job, however, they should rely on history to tel them how they should plan the future and avoid previous mistakes
Regards
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Fri, 2005-08-19 16:30
Napoleon never lost, he made a comeback like Muhammed Ali, the point is actually, that nobody actually knows what his goals were. I have spent quite a bit of time on the subject, a still cant figure out what Napoleon was up to.
The closest assumption I can make was that initially he was overtaken by a democratic fervour, and a while later he realised the armies (people ie the plebs)he was defending the the people who was keeping them in slavery. He then made a decission, to declare himself an Emporer (Dictator) and keep on with the fight for democracy. He was never truly defeated and will be remembered for his role in the fight for democracy. However, he pissed Beethoven off with his Emporer move.
Member for
20 years 11 months
Member for20 years11 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Fri, 2005-08-19 05:21
Excuse the late reply, but in "The States" you can end up on an island, with no god given right, with you right to any rights taken away, never mind free speech.
Personally, true freedom is within the individual.
It is not awarded by a state or government.
Even as you have quoted - Pat Henry (whomever he is), might I suggest is referring to himself, that he would choose death over not being liberated. But was liberated within, as this is what gives him "True" freedom, albeit freedom of speech.
Being able or being allowed to say what you want, does not mean that you are free, well in my opinion.
Respect,
And no disrespect intended.
Darrell
Member for
20 years 4 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Tue, 2005-08-16 08:37
The word democracy taken from the Greek word (Greek demos,”the people”; kratein, “to rule”), Democracy started in Ancient Greece then traveled to Ancient Rome. Democracy survived the “Dark Ages”, survived absolute monarchy and other form of government that degraded humanity.
In the 20th century we saw the birth of Nazism and the establishment of the Third Reich, Totalitarian German State. In addition, we saw the rise and fall of communism.
When I was in college way back in 1983, my professor predicted the downfall of communism. He based his prediction from history: no form of government that curtailed liberty, freedom and degraded humanity will survive. Communism in the former USSR did fall in August 1991.
I believe long time ago that democracy will last forever because it is in the human heart to be free. As one immortal said: GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Look at the birds, they are free to fly wherever they want to go. Humans also long to be free and to fly wherever they want to go.
Member for
20 years 11 months
Member for20 years11 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Sun, 2005-08-14 20:37
Beethoven and Napoleon met, and had democracy as a mutual understanding at the time. There was no way Hitler and Michaelangelo could have met as the were hundreds of years apart. You have to understand history, and get a grasp of the timeline, to get your mind into perspective.
Hi, Andrew,
The perspective on Napoleon and Beethoven, is that Napoleon was probably the best planner ever, however, he needed a person to control him. Beethoven understood him well, in the democracy he was trying to gring to its feet. Can you imagine something like trying to bring democracy to the world, and the downtrodden masses still being used as peons to fight you, what is the point, whoever you are, you need to go back and rethink, unfortunately, Napoleon declared himself the Emporor, and spoilt his friendship with Beethoven. The whole matter revolves around conviction, to what you are trying to achieve, and therein lies the answer!
Member for
20 years 11 months
Member for20 years11 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Fri, 2005-08-12 21:35
The rights of the individual may be a wonderfull thing to debate but have nil relevance to any rights that may exist between parties to a construction contract.
Member for
20 years 11 months
Member for20 years11 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Fri, 2005-08-12 11:41
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi guys,
I have a problem here. The terms Moderation and Censorship sounds different, but are essentially the same. So lets say a local parish minister/priest is censoring movies to be shown, and he does not like scenes with kisses, he will remove them, firstly because he has no experience of these things (mainly because of his vows of chastity), so the local boys being denied these pleasures, as was their fathers, go out and drink and fight (the Irish example). I come from a country with a long history of censorship, where it was run by small minded people, who included small minded politicians. If this minister/priest had a happy life with his wife and family, and was an example of how things should be, he probably would have left the kisses in and taught people the bad things about fighting, drinking is not the main problem, as most people who are normal can do it without fighting.
The point of good experience is the key factor, as we all have a choice about who we would like to be, and if left to our own devices, we would choose the non-fighting route, ie we have to learn about love, without the minister/priest cutting the scene. You cannot shield children from life, but they have to learn what it is all about, the way to do this is to rather teach the difference between right and wrong, and this can only be done through education, not only at schools but at home, and by example.
The relevance of all this in this discussion, is that the person who does the moderation, must have the experience, and not piety, to see the discussion in the relevant way, without being pernicious. The nature of projects normally lends itself to some serious discussions, and the saying is "If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Regards
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
I am a former moderator on a Christian message board. Believe me some of the posting was very near the knuckle, and to disagree or criticise somebody often equated to a damnation of their very core beliefs, the most deeply held and personal feelings.
We had some posters who were atheist, some agnostic, some Catholic and some Protestant, from all corners of the globe. We had some who deliberately tried to disrupt the board, either because they felt it was God’s duty or they felt aggressive towards the Christian faith.
It was a nightmare to moderate, we had a moderation team of 5-10 volunteers who had guidelines to adhere to, which were publicly advertised. More often than not we simply asked whether someone was in breach of the rules they agreed to adhere to when they registered (much like here) or if they were damaging to the overall welfare of the site (much like here).
For me it is all a question of integrity, I agreed to certain conditions when I signed up to PP, if I fail to live up to them I would expect to be admonished.
PP needs moderators, but the best moderation is done when nobody realises that anything has been done. PM’s can be used to good effect I have found, if a mod PM’s you pointing out a problem you are most likely to do what you can to put it right.
Can we edit our existing posts? That might be a useful tool.
[edit] just realised we can :-)
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Larry
You make some good points.
But does a child come out of the womb, "with that intrinsic knowledge" of knowing right from wrong. Some one argue either way, and either way it is difficult to prove or disprove. Every culture that has existed, has had its time, and has died or not survived, that is another arguement.
Some cultures last longer than others. Some have adapted and changed. So when is a culture not a culture any longer?
For example, lets take "the steriotype" of "the irish culture". Drinking & fighting? might have been percieved as part of, or the culture. We might take it now, that this is changing. Thus has the culture died or been lost? or is it just changing? Dont really know how this is measured.
Although "fighting & drinking" may have been taken as social norm. and a way of life. But believe me, as a child although it may have been tolerated, I knew as a child, as young as 5 that is was not "right", well for me anyhow. Many of / if not all of my "Irish peers" would agree with me.
Good discussion though,
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi PPadim,
The value of moderation has some value, but when it becomes censorship, it has no place in this world. The problem with both censorship, and moderation, is that the same ignoramuses vie for the positions, and it is difficult to select the right candidates, ie the ignoramuses versus the genuinely concerned. We live in a world where getting the job done is of the utmost importance, and do not need these extra constraints. Rude behaviour is sometimes the order of the day, to get the job done, but not always acceptable.
Why not just wait for a complaint and look at it, in contrast to these constant deletions and comments by the so-called moderators?
I would suggest you all watch a movie, " Il Nuova CINEMA PARADISO" to get a grasp of the problem.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Right and wrong are only absolutes within a context of personal belief or societal norms. Some societies (the US is one) dont hold children responsible for their actions for some crimes as they are believed to be unable to understand the difference between the two. If right and wrong were absolutes, then any child would come out of the womb with that intrinsic knowledge. Right and wrong are not instinctual, except to the extent that humans are social animals and will generally find the most advantageous societal norm that allows the culture to grow and flourish. Societies and cultures that dont succeed in that process generally dont survive. A culture where might makes right, and killing others was not considered a problem wouldnt survive, simply because people would tend to leave that culture at the very get go for their own safety.
This is a nature vs nurture argument, and Im inclined on the side of nurture from a strictly logical/empirical viewpoint.
Personally, I do believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, but I also recognize that those are a function of my upbringing, rather than any intrinsic knowledge on my part.
Larry
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Larry
Take your point.
But cannot concurr, that right and wrong are a societal construct. Breaking "the law" of "a societal construct" is not necesarilly right or wrong. If we say that to break the law of a society is wrong, then that is a societal construct. "The society" concerned have deemed that breaking "that law" is wrong. But breaking the law as far as right or wrong in itself is concerned, is a different issue.
For example Planning Planet may have "Laws or Rules", but is breaking those "Laws or Rules", right or wrong?
I might suggest that, if one did break these "Laws or Rules", it would have very little impact upon ones conscience (However that might be defined).
Killing someone or lets say, even executing or torture for that matter are looked on by some societies as just social norm. or a social construct?
I might suggest that, although the law might not persecute those participating in such acts, that perhaps their conscience may tell them something different. And I am not saying that doing the above is either right or wrong.
But that every Sentient being knows right from wrong.
But I suppose something like this is very difficult to get a grasp on, on a global scale?
Has this confused the issue?
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Right and wrong are a societal construct, however. There are very few behavioral norms beyond sheer survival that occur in every human culture.
Killing another human being is generally considered wrong, but every society has exceptions to that rule, and those exceptions differ from culture to culture.
Stealing is considered wrong, but only in cultures with a concept of individual property.
There are many other examples, and some may be more minor than others, (for example, in some cultures its considered rude to eat in public, in others, its no problem)
A culture, (and I think that applies to forums, also) cannot function without an agreed to set of rules or norms of behavior that allow it to most effectively function for the majority of its members. Without rules of some sort, the members of the culture have no idea how to act, and will simply act according to their upbringing, etc. which may not agree with that of others, especially in a forum like this, where we draw from many places and cultures.
That being said, if we have all agreed to abide by the Forum Rules, we can correct the person who is not abiding by those rules, and then appeal to authority if that person is not getting the idea that their behavior is not acceptable to the culture at large. It isnt that difficult to say to someone that they are being offensive, you just have to be somewhat assertive about what you want without being emotional or stooping to the same tactics.
Larry
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
PP Admin,
My view would be that, water can find its own level, given the "freedom" to do so. (Perhaps gravity to is a restriction). Societies are and can be self regulatory. Every sentient being knows the difference between right & wrong. But that of course is a level of utopia (whatever that means).
Politics / Religion / Superstition (Not that these are bad),
can tend to socially distort acceptance & toleration of something that does not feel right or correct to sentient beings.
Thus to me, is hard to distinguish the differences between Democracy & Totalitaranism. A clear or agreed definition of the two, to start with is difficult to establish. And which is better or worse may depend on application as much as intepretation.
Peace,
Darrell
ps. Also have to concurr with Stuart. Although some of my own mail may have been taken in a bad light. Have to admit though, some of this stuff is quite thought provoking & some is just pure shite. But it takes all sorts.
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
I think that those who make rude and offensive posts ultimately loose themselves credibility. This is a work/profession related site where participants look for genuine assistance on a number of wide ranging topics.
Therefore – unlike the more general type of chat board or blog – there is a certain amount of professional or business respect amongst us all. In my view, those who frequently post rude or offensive messages loose the respect of their peers on PP, as a result of which their posts – even their meaningful ones – are never taken seriously.
If – taking a random example and speaking hypothetically – someone was to accuse me of not having the brains to sustain a subject, decry my Scottish Ancestry and accuse me of not having “…a clue about democracy, or totarilism, (sic)…” , then I would just ignore such ranting because in my view the post itself says more about the intelligence and integrity of the author than I could ever write.
My view is that those who are continually rude and offensive to others on PP simply do themselves a disservice, and they should not be surprised when no one responds to any of their posts. Let them fall into outer space (where they belong) so that the rest of us can benefit from being on Planning Planet!! ;-)
Cheers,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com
Member for
21 years 6 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi PP Admin,
You are doing a good job as it is. We appreciate your perseverance in doing it.
Cheers
Member for
20 years 5 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
on second thought i have to agree with u "to prevent is better then cure"
Member for
20 years 5 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Give a try for one month see what will happen? They already enough to take care them self...only thing i’m afraid is abusing on religon and political...that want very dangerous.
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hello PPers,
Earlier in this thread the PP Admin team (i.e. not moderators) asked a couple of questions with respect to what goes on in the forum. The following issues have been raised...
If the moderators were not on the case, what should we do to stop people being rude and abusive etc? Would the whole system degenerate? i.e. some good discussion and a percentage of rude back-chat? Are we saying that if no-one removed the odd rude message, would these rude messages would not be posted in the first instance? Or is it OK to have abuse and undue rudeness etc? Or would an un-moderated society be acceptable and productive?
How should this / could this work?
If we have no rules, what would happen?
If we have rules (which we do) surely we should also have a means of making sure people abide by these rules?
Your thoughts on this would be valued.
Best Regards. Happy Planning.
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi Stuart,
Your name belies your ancestry, maybe you are a sassenach, and do not understand what it is all aboout, sorry I have to speak to you in English, but you obviously understand no other language, sorry, with a name like Stuart I might have thought you originated from Scotland, the original bastion of Democracy, and had the brains to sustain the subject. Maybe, you should go out and find some other interest, like building christmas trees and not get involved with serious subjects, by the way Beethoveven would have been seriously pissed of with you, and a few others. Your lack of knowledge of history is conspicuous, and obviates you from this forum. You do not have a clue about democracy, or totarilism, so forget about your opinions, on subject you have no clue about.
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi Oscar, you sound more like than a yank
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
The point is can you relax for a day? And how would you like to do it?
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Now Iowa sounds like a great place
skip the fishing drink the beers
No worries mate
Is this a single slab fishing trip
Oscar
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
In the Midwest, where I am, we say
"Give a man a fish, and hell eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and hell sit in the boat and drink beer."
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hello Stuart
For consistency you need practice, i.e. you need a "gillea" and you have to do the job, you have to know what your point of reference is, i.e. what is the job about.
What democracy is about is that you can think freely about what you are suppose to do and not worry about the politics of the situation and do not worry unless you have a bunch of idiots working for you.
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Quote from Philip:
"...when it comes to fishing, you need experts, and never believe you know it all."
Philip, even children can fish successfuly. ;-)
And as for knowing it all, the quality of your numerous posts belies your shyness and modesty!!
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Moderator,
If you are looking for assistance in moderation, I think you will not have to look very far. Some on this posting, are suggesting or nominating themselves, which is a healthy thing of course.
Personally I think that, to date the forum(s) have been pretty well moderated & tolerated, but that is me. Others of course will not concurr.
We have a vast cross section of opinion and views.
And on fishing, it is easy and fast to learn to fish.
I learnt most of what I know about fishing in a day.
From making a fishing rod, putting together a line, and actually catching a fish. The object being, that you catch a fish, kill it, get & clean it, cook it and eat it.
Was never really into fly fishing, but a couple of friends of mine learnt to tie a fly in a day, and handle a fly rod the following day & were catching trout by the third day.
They must be "the three day experts".........
Am not percieved as a fast learner or anything, in fact in school I excelled at very little, and was held back for a year, because my work was viewed as being poor.
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 2 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
The forum guidelines dont see unreasonable to me. Am I missing something? Which guideline is causing a problem with discussing planning and scheduling?
Stacy
Participate in the Project Management Knowledge Base!
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hello PPers,
On the subject of moderators, housekeeping, and maintaining order on a discussion forum...
If the moderators were not on the case, what should we do to stop people being rude and abusive etc? Wouldn’t the whole system degenerate? i.e. some good discussion and a percentage of rude back-chat?
Are we saying that if no-one removed the odd rude message, would they not be posted in the first instance? How should this, could this work? Do we have no rules??
I know that some of the moderators initially offered their time to help run the forum, however, their role now seems to have to involve a large degree of removing rude posts. This does not make them happy.
This is an interesting question. Your collective thoughts would be welcome.
PP Admin Team (Volunteer planners like yourselves).
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Oscar,
At least you have the decency to think, the moderators believe they have the right to censor anything they dont like. The point is that they have no rights, execpt knocking off degenarates who have no right being on PP. Their problem is that seem to have taken on this role of the KGB, ie wiping anything they do not like. This has always been the problem wherever censure was applied, that the idiots seem to take the positions of censors (moderators) and they inevatiable screw up the system, therefore you need people with vision in these positions. I do not claim to be the ideal moderator, but I can keep a few contractors happy.
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Stuart,
I know how to do up my own fly, however, when it comes to fishing, you need experts, and never believe you know it all
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Is it worse to be moderated or to self censor????
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Quote from Philip:
"Any body [who] wants to learn fly-fishing can learn from my apprentice"
Is that because you are incapable of tying your own flies, Philip?
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi guys
Is the originator of this thread, I hope I have a say
I believe moderation is a simple way of life
I believe that when you go the whole hog you really believe you can do the job so all you that believe that moderators and the rest can sort out your life let them sort it out!! Because you can’t sort out your own life, that is why you refer to the moderators to protect you. I am using a junior planner to write this post so excuse the spelling, but I believe my junior planner is better than half of you and deserves better job:) just for a laughs, my junior planner cant spell and he is still learning, but he is quite good and he has the capability of learning but remember that he typed this, and this is the basis of democracy.
Any body how wants to learn fly-fishing can learn from my apprentice
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Clive,
Folks,
Planning Immortals, is just begenning to kick off.
(Under improving planning planet website).
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
21 years 5 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Clive,
Thats a good idea; could this dictionary also include definitions for humour, humorous and po-faced as well?
Chris Oggham
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hello to all,
I appreciate the moderator quick actions.
This will ensure democracy will continue in PP.
Some PP becomes emotional and hinting on physical abuse towards their peers in PP.
It is the moderator sound judgement that the forum rules shalll be implemented.
LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS, the guardians of democracy in Planning Planet.
LONG LIVE, LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS.
without you democracy in PP will be curtailed.
LONG LIVE, LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS.
Cheers and Have a beautiful weekends,
From Charlie with all the blessings
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Clive,
If the views of the majority were always expressed,
then what need do we have, for any form of debate or discussion?
And it is Feckan, as in feckan ejit.
All the best,
Darrell
Member for
22 years 6 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Another interesting explanation here:
Cute hoor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Cute hoor is a Hiberno-English term used to describe someone who will do whatever it takes to achieve what they want. Usually a cute hoor will not break the law but it is seen as willing to bend and use the law, use people or use situations to come out on top, by pulling dishonest or misleading stunts en route.
In this context cute means cunning, and is a clipped form of acute. The word hoor (pronounced hoo-r) is based on the English word whore, but in the term cute hoor has no sexual connotations.
The term cute hoor is often used as a quasi-affectionate term, for someone whose utter unreliability and untrustworthyness is well known, seen through and treated almost as a joke. Then Irish Tánaiste Brian Lenihan was described as a cute hoor on a Late Late Show TV special about him in 1990 by some of his colleagues and friends, who recounted stories of his unreliability, including promising parents he’d get jobs for their children, then losing the piece of paper on which he’d recorded the details, or making ’spur of the moment’ promises to voters during elections that would be forgotten as quickly as they were thought of. In Lenihan’s case, his cute hoor image came back to haunt him when the question of his trustworthyness and reliability became a central issue in the 1990 presidential election, an election he sensationally lost to Mary Robinson.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cute_hoor"
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Katalin,
Oooohhh, nicely stated, very clear defitition & analogy.
Respect,
Darrell
Member for
22 years 6 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4058648-102278,00.html
Haughey was the Juan Peron of Irish politics. Like the glamorous Argentinian dictator, he inspired a fanatical following with his peculiar blend of nationalist fervour, right-wing views and appeasement of powerful trade union leaders. He was master of the small political gesture - granting tax exemption to artists and free travel to retirees - and was hugely popular. He was also the supreme practitioner of the Irish political art of cute hoorism (a clever whore), slyly outmanoeuvring his opponents with backstage deals. He cultivated his image as the man of power, the man of decision, the very embodiment of the Irish nation.
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Clive,
Don’t know if you were referring to Philip or myself (Darrell). You are correct I would suggest, in that point that you have just made. That this forum is titled "Democracy vs Totalitaranism" (Whatever that means), which automatically brings into play the whole "freedom of speech thing", that anyone should get moderated upon, is ironic.
Their is also another expression we have here,
its called "Cute-Hoorism".
And I actually picked it up from overhearing a politician talk. Don’t normally listen much when politicians talk, more fool me. But this expression struck a chord with me.
Does anyone know what it means? or as Planners could ye work it out?
Also remember, "Fulashite", is just an expression used in Ireland by some, to express an opinion about a feeling one has, about some of the discourse carried out by certain people. Again it is a cultural ting.
Slán go fóil,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi Philip,
I did experienced some of my post deleted by miderators. I did feel edgy and same like you.
The only difference was that I always recall my previous post
(Product of the French Revolution)
"The Declaration of the Rights of Man
"4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
The limit in PP are the forum rules. The moderators base their actions on the forum rules.
I did not take offence on the actions by the moderator. We will just let the moderators be what they are suppose to be, anyway PP give us the chance to let us be also.
Have a nice weekend.
Charlie
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Philip,
Politics & histo-political reference were never a strong point of mine. Am aware of some of the main historiocal events, Irish, European & World. Am certainly no historian. Perhaps there are patterns developing, in developing nations that some are loathe to notice or will not acknowledge. All nations perhaps should be developing??
Might I suggest that their is no intrinsic difference between "Democracy" and "Totalitaranism". But their is a huge difference in the application and the leadershit of any of these types of societal structures. Therein lies the issue.
They have both worked and failed at different times historically. A sudo-type-democracy seems the flavour of the day in western society, with a slight para-noia-semi-police-type-arrangement.
And in school many years ago, we were doing "Ancient History", we read and were told that the Greeks invented democracy?????? Open to re-writing or correction of course.
Might I also say the, the word "Bollocks" in Ireland is seldom taken as an insult or swear word. This is a cultural ting though, so no offence intended.
Respect,
Darrell
Member for
24 years 6 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Philip
"An interesting point is that the first so-called democracy was Scotland"
Interesting? Well it may be an interesting claim but its also totally wrong.
I speak as a Scot and also a keen amateur historian.
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi,
Before Renaissance
Killing of Jesus.
Persecution of Christians.
Crusade.
After Renaissance
Imperialism and colonial rule.
Racism
Slavery.
Genocide.
Fascism.
Nazism.
Holocaust.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Communism.
Apartheid
Bosnia.
Embargo.
Clash of Civilizations.
These are the hallmarks of societies which presume itself as the Inventor, Champion and Propagator of “Democracy” as if “Democracy” is end in itself for which Human Being is Created.
Moreover defeat of Napolean in Waterloo by Lord Nelson had nothing to do with “Democracy”. But with Planning a big “Yes”. It was just matter of “Fifteen minute or so” …. I forgot the detail…….
Cheers.
Member for
22 years 6 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Im reading Michael Moore book "Dude, wheres my country?" Try to read it. I think it is about the democracy. He was able to publish it, but so what. Most of my life I worked for big companies. All over the places restrictions. Try to make a "real" schedule when you are on the contractors side or the clients side. Think about the milestone contracts. Big "democracy" there too. I think we need to discuss this things among us. How to do your job without hurting anybody.
Regards Katalin
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Darrell,
As an Irishman,it surprises me that you do not know of Patrick Henry, this was a politician of note in America, with simular ideas to most of your countrymen. I hope you do not think Paul Revere is a cigarette. Henry coined the words, "Give me liberty or give me death", theay got so pissed off the threw all the English tea into Boston harbour. This resulted in a war where they kicked the englishs butts.
An interesting point is that the first so-called democracy was Scotland, and then France. But the american Red Indians had figured it out before this, and this accelerated the american style of democracy.
Planners should be living in the future, as that is their job, however, they should rely on history to tel them how they should plan the future and avoid previous mistakes
Regards
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi Andrew,
Napoleon never lost, he made a comeback like Muhammed Ali, the point is actually, that nobody actually knows what his goals were. I have spent quite a bit of time on the subject, a still cant figure out what Napoleon was up to.
The closest assumption I can make was that initially he was overtaken by a democratic fervour, and a while later he realised the armies (people ie the plebs)he was defending the the people who was keeping them in slavery. He then made a decission, to declare himself an Emporer (Dictator) and keep on with the fight for democracy. He was never truly defeated and will be remembered for his role in the fight for democracy. However, he pissed Beethoven off with his Emporer move.
Member for
20 years 11 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Darrell,
You have a very good point, in no state anywhere are we free, just more free in some than others.
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Bill,
Excuse the late reply, but in "The States" you can end up on an island, with no god given right, with you right to any rights taken away, never mind free speech.
Personally, true freedom is within the individual.
It is not awarded by a state or government.
Even as you have quoted - Pat Henry (whomever he is), might I suggest is referring to himself, that he would choose death over not being liberated. But was liberated within, as this is what gives him "True" freedom, albeit freedom of speech.
Being able or being allowed to say what you want, does not mean that you are free, well in my opinion.
Respect,
And no disrespect intended.
Darrell
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
The word democracy taken from the Greek word (Greek demos,”the people”; kratein, “to rule”), Democracy started in Ancient Greece then traveled to Ancient Rome. Democracy survived the “Dark Ages”, survived absolute monarchy and other form of government that degraded humanity.
In the 20th century we saw the birth of Nazism and the establishment of the Third Reich, Totalitarian German State. In addition, we saw the rise and fall of communism.
When I was in college way back in 1983, my professor predicted the downfall of communism. He based his prediction from history: no form of government that curtailed liberty, freedom and degraded humanity will survive. Communism in the former USSR did fall in August 1991.
I believe long time ago that democracy will last forever because it is in the human heart to be free. As one immortal said: GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Look at the birds, they are free to fly wherever they want to go. Humans also long to be free and to fly wherever they want to go.
Member for
20 years 11 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Philip,
Napoloen the best ever planner - um, I believe he lost in the end - so someone did their planning better!
Good planning gets the end result - Napoleon failed to get the end result he was seeking.
Member for
21 yearsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Hi Charleston,
A man after my own heart, ie yo have cojones.
Hi Raja,
Beethoven and Napoleon met, and had democracy as a mutual understanding at the time. There was no way Hitler and Michaelangelo could have met as the were hundreds of years apart. You have to understand history, and get a grasp of the timeline, to get your mind into perspective.
Hi, Andrew,
The perspective on Napoleon and Beethoven, is that Napoleon was probably the best planner ever, however, he needed a person to control him. Beethoven understood him well, in the democracy he was trying to gring to its feet. Can you imagine something like trying to bring democracy to the world, and the downtrodden masses still being used as peons to fight you, what is the point, whoever you are, you need to go back and rethink, unfortunately, Napoleon declared himself the Emporor, and spoilt his friendship with Beethoven. The whole matter revolves around conviction, to what you are trying to achieve, and therein lies the answer!
Member for
20 years 11 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Charleston,
The rights of the individual may be a wonderfull thing to debate but have nil relevance to any rights that may exist between parties to a construction contract.
Member for
20 years 11 monthsRE: Democracy vs Totalitaranism
Guess that depend what country you live in!