Lockout

[jebrown]

The majoprity of the people on the banned borads are adults. Some may not act like it but that is the truth. So now the admiunistrators think that they are our parents.
We didn't mind them so we are being puhished guilty or not.
So who is being childish? We didn't play by your rules so now you have taken your toys and run home. "Since you didn't paly by my rules you can't play with my toys".
So who is being childish?
We are adults who come together to discuss issues. Yes we get a littl heated and call each other names.
If some one doesn't like it, stay out of the mix.
It wasn't the name calling itself that got the boards locked it was the admistrators tired of listening to the cry babies saying so and so said this about me, do something.
I have gotten into disagreements on this forum, been called names and even threatened with phisical violence. Did I come whinning to anybody? No I didn't.
People will always disagree.
People disagreeed with Jesus, called him names and well we all know what happened to him in the end.
Did he go whinning to his Father? No he handeled it all by his self. His topics are still being hotly debated today.
My point is wea are adults. We will always disagree no matter what the subject. Take a look at our politicians and how the argue.
When I read a post the I don't like what some people are saying I do what every one should do. HIT THE BACK BUTTON and leave the post.
The ressults of blocking theses boards are hurting the entire orginazation of Backwoods Home.
On several othert boards people are talking some from this board. Many are saying that the will not post anymore on any board just read. Some will log in but not post. Many have stated that they will not renew there subscription to the magazine or have any thing to do with the forum.
Others on other forums feel that it is wrong for the boards to be blocked as we are viewd as individuals.
One meber here told three people about BHM on another site. All three found out about what was going on and decided to stay away. What was lost was three subscriptions but more important a lot of knowledge by these individuals.
How many newcomers have come here hoping to learn and provide valuable knowledge yet left to never return because of how people are treated here.
Like it has been said by several people, some say something and get the boot. Others go on and on and on and never get booted.
So the people new to the site see this unfair activity and leave. We as forum members loose out on information and BHM looses customers and followers. Yes I know the comment is it is our fault for arguing and name calling but the newcomers see it as the administartors doings. Right or wrong there opinion can't be changed.
If I am still welcome here, I will be back as usual. If not then I will not be upset. It will be only a fraction of a loss, not a big one.

[offroaddiesel]

well , its their forum, we are only guest here, nothing more nothing less. it seems political views are not a popular subject an a lot of forums latley. nothing more to say . steve

[admin]

The majoprity of the people on the banned borads are adults. *Some may not act like it but that is the truth. So now the admiunistrators think that they are our parents.
We didn't mind them so we are being puhished guilty or not.
So who is being childish? *We didn't play by your rules so now you have taken your toys and run home. *"Since you didn't paly by my rules you can't play with my toys".
So who is being childish?
We are adults who come together to discuss issues. *Yes we get a littl heated and call each other names. *
If some one doesn't like it, stay out of the mix.
It wasn't the name calling itself that got the boards locked it was the admistrators tired of listening to the cry babies saying so and so said this about me, do something.
I have gotten into disagreements on this forum, been called names and even threatened with phisical violence. *Did I come whinning to anybody? *No I didn't.
People will always disagree.
People disagreeed with Jesus, called him names and well we all know what happened to him in the end.
Did he go whinning to his Father? *No he handeled it all by his self. His topics are still being hotly debated today.
My point is wea are adults. *We will always disagree no matter what the subject. *Take a look at our politicians and how the argue.
When I read a post the I don't like what some people are saying I do what every one should do. HIT THE BACK BUTTON and leave the post. *
The ressults of blocking theses boards are hurting the entire orginazation of Backwoods Home.
On several othert boards people are talking some from this board. *Many are saying that the will not post anymore on any board just read. *Some will log in but not post. Many have stated that they will not renew there subscription to the magazine or have any thing to do with the forum.
Others on other forums feel that it is wrong for the boards to be blocked as we are viewd as individuals.
One meber here told three people about BHM on another site. *All three found out about what was going on and decided to stay away. What was *lost was three subscriptions but more important a lot of knowledge by these individuals.
How many newcomers have come here hoping to learn and provide valuable knowledge yet left to never return because of how people are treated here. *
Like it has been said by several people, some say something and get the boot. Others go on and on and on and never get booted. *
So the people new to the site see this unfair activity and leave. *We as forum members loose out on information and BHM looses customers and followers. *Yes I know the comment is it is our fault for arguing and name calling but the newcomers see it as the administartors doings. *Right or wrong there opinion can't be changed.
If I am still welcome here, I will be back as usual. *If not then I will not be upset. It will be only a fraction of a loss, not a big one.

The problem was the amount of time it took to deal with all the problems created by relatively few people.

If you were not one of them, I thank you.

Since the source of the problems - personal remarks - will now result in immediate disabling of a member's account, the problems will go away one way or another.

Keep in mind this Forum is a free service BHM provides. Nobody has a right to post here.

All we have ever asked of members is that they remain civil and respectful of other members. Those who are unable to follow those basic rules of polite conversation are no longer welcome here.


Oliver

[scarecrow2009]

[spam removed by admin]

[Ebug]

Interesting, interesting. It is not my intent to take sides for I have learned a long time ago that no one's mine or opinion will be changed by reading the thoughts of others if they fail to concur with their own.

I am familiar with some of the members and their personalities. I have seen them get removed from other forums, be extremely insulting and then yell poor me when some one retaliates.

If I was the administrator, I too would send their sorry rear ends down the primrose path. ;D

[MIKENSUE]

We are not seriously vocal members in this forum, have had a couple of confrontations, choose to sit back and observe and glean more than contribute. However, I think that we are all adults here.
When we go into a social situation, are there moderators, potificators etc. there? I think we all need to stop the cyber bullying and get in tune to the fact that these are real people we are talking to and not just some avitar.
Sue

[rivahmom]

Bump

[mtwildflower]

I wonder if the so called adults here, the ones who cause the majority of problems, would also be offended if we gave them the boot from our own homes if they proceeded to insult, demean, berate, name call and have hissy fits at the other guests we invited.

The same principle applies here.

[Mister_Mxyzptlk]

I wonder if the so called adults here, the ones who cause the majority of problems, would also be offended if we gave them the boot from our own homes if they proceeded to insult, demean, berate, name call and have hissy fits at the other guests we invited.

Were you invited here? I know I wasn't. I found this place through Google. I was admitted after a process that took less time than getting a table at Spagos. This place is more like a restaurant or bar than a private home. There is no trespassing here, just the cyber equivalent of "no shirt, no shoes, no service". The rules have to be clear and followed honestly or else this public place could be guilty of discrimination.

Now I doubt the ACLU would take up the case of a wrongful dismissal here, but you never know. They are a left leaning organization and they might enjoy beating down some righties.

[flatwater]

I know you seem to

[Anon001]

*The rules have to be clear and followed honestly or else this public place could be guilty of discrimination.

Now I doubt the ACLU would take up the case of a wrongful dismissal here, but you never know. *They are a left leaning organization and they might enjoy beating down some righties.

I must respectfully disagree with you. This IS not public. It is privately owned and as far as I know, they could do as they wish. It is not required to "publicly accomodate" the same as restaurants and bars. And as far as the ACLU, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[cinok]

Were you invited here? *I know I wasn't. *I found this place through Google. *I was admitted after a process that took less time than getting a table at Spagos. *This place is more like a restaurant or bar than a private home. *There is no trespassing here, just the cyber equivalent of "no shirt, no shoes, no service". *The rules have to be clear and followed honestly or else this public place could be guilty of discrimination.

Now I doubt the ACLU would take up the case of a wrongful dismissal here, but you never know. *They are a left leaning organization and they might enjoy beating down some righties.

Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

[Mister_Mxyzptlk]

Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

So a restaurant could say "No Coloreds" and that would be ok? How about "No Catholics"? What about "No Republicans"? Are those ok? How about allowing smoking? Are there any states where you can still smoke in a restaurant?

Once you open up to the public you have to open up to all the public. You can refuse a customer based on certain published behaviors but not simply because you don't like them.

[MissouriFree]

No restaurants can not refuse seating based on any type of discrimination. they are a *place of public accommodation:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

But BWH can eject ( or refuse membership). *that is the basis of the Boy Scouts of American Supreme court case. they could not discriminate base on sexual preference but they could refuse membership to any one they wanted to as a private organization.

added:

BWH , yes , has an easy membership process but they could just as easy ask for fingerprints, bcakground checks or any number of things if they so choose. so beacuse the membership process was easy do not presume it is a public place.

[cinok]

So a restaurant could say "No Coloreds" and that would be ok? *How about "No Catholics"? *What about "No Republicans"? *Are those ok? *How about allowing smoking? *Are there any states where you can *still smoke in a restaurant?

Once you open up to the public you have to open up to all the public. *You can refuse a customer based on certain published behaviors but not simply because you don't like them.

I assumed that members who read this post would have enough intelligence that they know that refusing service based upon discrimination laws is illegal, but refusing service due to actions such as being a loud mouth just trying to start trouble) is justified in any private company.

[Anon001]

I may be mistaken and I need to do some research but, I think where we have this discussion, there is a difference in "pulic" and "public accomodation". *Also, keep in mind that there are many things that can be legally discriminated. *For example in federal law as well as many state laws, you can fire someone because they are too skinny or too fat, or because you don't like the color of their hair, etc. *And, I would think liberal and conservative fall under that category as well... but not certain. However, I do know that there are very few items that are actualy protected.

There is a lot I don't know. *But I do know that I was legally terminated from my last job. *I asked for *"UP TO" 3 weeks off for a 'partial' corneal transplant that was necessary. *I had 6 weeks on the books. *Was terminated because of the issue.... *Was it moral? no. *Was it legal? *Yes... *(they were one employee shy of falling under the Family Leave Act.)

So, in many situations you can discrminate, and here is one place that you can because it is not considered "public accomodation".

[GoodDaughter]

Mr. Mytzlpik, I used to refuse customers all the time. Yep, sure did. The foul mouthed ones who wanted to use profanity, those who insulted me, those who did not respect my business property both personal and real, those who tried to swindle or intimidate me, those who just plain made me mad or who were troublemakers. Ran them right out the door and told them not to come back. Never heard a peep out of any agency either priveate or public about it either.

Not everything is a branch of the government, or operates under the Wal Mart rule of business. That's life in the *real* world, if you think it's wrong or not.

[Mister_Mxyzptlk]

So, in many situations you can discrminate, and here is one place that you can because it is not considered "public accomodation".

Just because no one bothers to get a lawyer to force you to comply doesn't mean what you do is legal. It just means it's not worth while to sue. I think it would be interesting to see someone file a discrimination lawsuit against a forum for booting them off. I doubt it will ever happen, but it would be fun.

[GoodDaughter]

Please show us how this alleged 'discrimination' you perceieve here is 'illegal'.

That would be interesting. Seems that even in the legal system, the proof of burden is not upon the accused but rather the accuser.

[Anon001]

There would be no legal basis. A judge would throw it out.