Member Rara Avis
First, Boomtown, I think you are misremembering: I have personally never received any email from you. And when you joined Passions, there were 247 people in front of you, not 30. Second, your Username wasn't disabled simply because you never broke any rules that required it being disabled. Expressing an opinion in a civilized manner was not, is not, and never will be against the rules.
When you went back and edited those opinions, however, you crossed over that line. I never explicitly asked you to post your poetry at Passions. I never asked you to express your opinions. When you did so, though, you invited discussion and response. A dialog between yourself and the other Members of Passions. Returning later to change your words, several days after that discussion had been resolved, impacts not just your side of the dialog. It impacts both sides. Your actions rob the responses you invited of their meaning, whether in part or in whole. You choose to see it as a protest. But it doesn't hurt me, the object of your protest. It only hurts the people you engaged in dialog. Protest? Or simple bad manners?
I chose not to enter this discussion previously because it was obvious from the beginning that nothing I said was going to change your mind. I chose to agree to disagree, rather than try to argue against platitudes preached in a microcosm. The truth is, you and I are not in as large a disagreement as you might think. I, too, believe in freedom. There are plenty of places on the Internet, such as the Scroll, that allow and even encourage glorifications of smut and hate. That's freedom. But there are also plenty of places, such as Disney, that choose to lend their names only to the precepts they believe promote harmony and discourage hate. And that is freedom, too. Were someone to come along and argue that all the Scrolls on the Internet should be shut down, I suspect you and I would stand shoulder to shoulder in protest, Boomtown. It is only when someone comes along and argues that Disney must allow bigotry, wanton violence, and persecutions that you and I would disagree. I will not lend my name or efforts to a site that allows personal attacks. Period. That simple rule accounts for about 99 percent of what you choose to call censorship. The remaining one percent - which represent about four works of "art" out of some 30,000 - were glorifications of rape, child abuse or suicide. And again, I will not lend my name or efforts to a site that promotes people hurting people. Nor will I apologize for it.
Your poetry has been deleted, Boomtown. Sadly, the responses to your poetry were necessarily deleted as well. Does that mean your request in effect caused those people who posted honest responses to be censored? I'm not sure it's fair that one Member can implicitly ask to have the words of another deleted. Nor am I sure it's fair that a Member can edit the meaning of their words and, in doing so, subtly change the meaning of a dialog. Unfortunately, in the interests of freedom, there are rarely any easy answers.
The contents of this thread, and certainly this theme, could perhaps warrant a great deal more discussion. It might well wend its way into 2001, and I definitely don't want to discourage that discussion. But, not surprisingly, this thread has also grown excessively long, now taking several minutes just to load. I encourage anyone who would like to address these concerns to start a new thread, referencing back to this one. I am closing this thread, because of its length, but the discussion is free to continue.