Community Chat

[newziesuzie]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

Life is short.  It's a beautiful day.  Go outside and plant a flower; hug a tree, buy an ice cream for somebody you don't know; breathe some fresh air.

All this constant yammering about posts and threads and reporting to the mods and how the mods are biased or not - geeze Louise already.

I have grandchildren to see today;  hope y'all have something nice to do instead of whining about the mods.

---

ITA @Cakers3,

and I basically said the same thing on this thread 

and on the other thread here in CC.  I don't usually 

even post on these threads but they've become almost a 

daily whine and I decided to say what I think.  Not that 

it'll do any good lol!

😊

❤️peace❤️

[JustJazzmom]

If a person doesn't like the 'censorship' or as it should be called 'moderation', there are numerous websites that a person can post at. Moderation is a need for all forums on the internet otherwise its like the Wild West.

I'm grateful for the increased moderation here.

[SusieQ_2]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.

---

No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue. 

---

Not looking very singular or concrete, especially since QVC  is a private company and not the Federal govt.

---

Doesn't matter about being private or gov't. No one has questioned the legality of censoring a private company. The point is the word is easily defined.  It is what it is regardless of the eye of the beholder. 

---

That does not make sense.  There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or anyone's individual view is not "the" view for everyone.

---

Yes it does make sense. Saying that the word has no single definition is what doesn't make sense. 

I can post the definition if that would help but it's easily found online.

---

No thanks. I have zero problem with my take on it.

---

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication and other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities, groups or institutions. 

If you don't think that's what censorship is, or what it is here, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on it. 

[IamMrsG]

---

@newziesuzie wrote:

---

Cakers3 wrote:  Life is short.  It's a beautiful day.  Go outside and plant a flower; hug a tree, buy an ice cream for somebody you don't know; breathe some fresh air.

All this constant yammering about posts and threads and reporting to the mods and how the mods are biased or not - geeze Louise already.

I have grandchildren to see today;  hope y'all have something nice to do instead of whining about the mods.  

---

ITA and I basically said the same thing on this thread and on the other thread here in CC.  I don't usually 

even post on these threads but they've become almost a daily whine and I decided to say what I think.  Not that 

it'll do any good lol! 😊  ❤️peace❤️

---

This is aimed at no one in particular, but:

What I do not understand is why, if you are annoyed by what you call whining, do you perpetuate it by responding?  In truth, a lot of scolding about it just comes across as more whining, just in a smug tone.  Smug comments serve as bait that usually wind up getting threads deleted.  

Again, I stress I am not speaking to any one person.  This is just my own observation on the subject as a whole.

[millieshops]

They own the boards, so they also own the rights and liabilities that go with them, so whatever they do, they do.

Spoiler

Spoiler

I always assume when posters complain, they are somehow comparing these boards to others where they can say whatever they wish without any moderators interfering.  I've seen boards like that and have absoluteloy no desire to go there.  About 3 years ago, I stopped reading the comments posted on one of my local papers because the preponderance of the posts were quite obviously from people who just wanted to see how far they could push the envelope of incivility.  Nothing much ever got said that was interesting or in the slightest bit important to me.

If QVC begins to allow those kinds of responses, I will be gone before noon on day 1.

[Pearlee]

Whoever doesn't like the censorship here, start your own internet board and moderate it however you want to.   This isn't your board, not your rules.   So obey them or go elsewhere.

[newziesuzie]

---

@IamMrsG wrote:

---

@newziesuzie wrote:

---

Cakers3 wrote:  Life is short.  It's a beautiful day.  Go outside and plant a flower; hug a tree, buy an ice cream for somebody you don't know; breathe some fresh air.

All this constant yammering about posts and threads and reporting to the mods and how the mods are biased or not - geeze Louise already.

I have grandchildren to see today;  hope y'all have something nice to do instead of whining about the mods.  

---

ITA and I basically said the same thing on this thread and on the other thread here in CC.  I don't usually 

even post on these threads but they've become almost a daily whine and I decided to say what I think.  Not that 

it'll do any good lol! 😊  ❤️peace❤️

---

This is aimed at no one in particular, but:

What I do not understand is why, if you are annoyed by what you call whining, do you perpetuate it by responding?  In truth, a lot of scolding about it just comes across as more whining, just in a smug tone.  Smug comments serve as bait that usually wind up getting threads deleted.  

Again, I stress I am not speaking to any one person.  This is just my own observation on the subject as a whole.

---

But you did quote me, and I really already answered your question.

I'm not being "smug" and I don't think anybody else is

either and don't usually post on these threads but since they

keep popping up I thought my different opinion might 

help answer some of the questions that keep being asked.

😊

[SusieQ_2]

---

@Pearlee wrote:

Whoever doesn't like the censorship here, start your own internet board and moderate it however you want to.   This isn't your board, not your rules.   So obey them or go elsewhere.

---

So far it doesn't look like they're censoring complaints about the censorship. With that being the case I think the people who choose to can continue on with their objections and the others can continue to whine about the whining. If people get too out of control they may be "censored" right out the door, but to think you (the general you, not you Pearlee) are in charge of another person's topic of conversation is just not the case. At this point in time the censorship has not reached the personal control level.

[eddyandme]

---

@SydneyH wrote:

---

@CCC1 wrote:

---

---

Since I posted my comment here, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory I was talking about the removal of threads from this board.  It seems to be a common complaint here.

---

They reserve the right to remove threads or content that don't match their standards, shrugs......

---

@SydneyH

IMHO it's their standards that noboy can figure out, including them!!!!!  Someone will poof something - no reason given; then, magically, QVC will put it back - again, no explanation given.  Guess it depends on who's doing the poofing - like the right hand d/n know what the left hand is doing.  Certainly not a question of not following the rules; I think a clarification of the rules is needed for the Community and the poofers!

[Moonchilde]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.

---

No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue. 

---

Not looking very singular or concrete, especially since QVC  is a private company and not the Federal govt.

---

Doesn't matter about being private or gov't. No one has questioned the legality of censoring a private company. The point is the word is easily defined.  It is what it is regardless of the eye of the beholder. 

---

That does not make sense.  There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or ahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htmlnyone's indivihttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htmldual view is not "the" view for everyone.

---

Yes it does make sense. Saying that the word has no single definition is what doesn't make sense. 

I can post the definition if that would help but it's easily found online.

---

No thanks. I have zero problem with my take on it.

---

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication and other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities, groups or institutions. 

If you don't think that's what censorship is, or what it is here, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on it. 

---

I already posted a link, in one of my initial responses to you, to a website chock full of definitions and opinions. For some reason I was not able to correct after several tries, the link posted at the TOP of the post. Your definition is one of many I read on at least half a dozen sites including this one. It may be "the" only definition to you - not to most people.

I won't be responding to you regarding this further as there is clearly no point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htm