Comments on: My Two WordPress Cents

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:45:02 +0000

If you're the person I think you are, I didn't delete your comments I just never took them out of moderation because they were false, inflammatory, anonymous, and added nothing to the conversation. I have nothing wrong with contrary viewpoints, particularly from people with the courage to put their real name on them, but if you want to act crass and ill-bred please do it on your site and not mine. If you have a problem with something in WordPress try filing a bug instead of trolling comments everywhere. Now if you excuse me I have to go back to my embedded Firefox spyware and surpressing free speech across the Interweb.

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:37:13 +0000

No reason to continue this as your commentary is way out in right field. I never, at any point in any post said I had a right to be published on his site. The fact that he couldn’t respect the free speech of others and allow it on his site is what I was discussing. Unfortunately this conversation is way over your head, so hopefully you’ll understand why I am done responding to your broken record of nonsense. The measure of an individual is in how much they respect the freedom of others. Again, if you don’t agree with the concept of freedom, then that is your problem, not mine. I am talking about respect for freedom only, not explicit rights of publication on the sites of others. But let’s hear that broken record’s tune one more time.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:32:15 +0000

I get what you are saying. You are saying he doesn’t respect a right you don’t have.

The word I would use for that isn’t nuance. You can guess what word I would use.

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:28:51 +0000

I very clearly was talking about respect for free speech, not infringement of it, or constitutional infringement of it. I’m talking about honor, and respect for the freedom of others. This is wholly lost on you, so I’m not surprised you’ve become a broken record on the subject.

I do understand what you’re saying, but it seems nearly impossible for you to grasp the nuance of what I am actually saying.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:21:27 +0000

Here’s what you don’t get. Whatever you think of your comments being deleted, deleting them was not an infringement of your free speech. And, claiming it was, is saying that the constitution requires web site owners to publish your thoughts if you wish them to.

So, yes, you did “say it was.”

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:17:25 +0000

And I’ll leave you with this mind-blowing remark.

I never said it was.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:59:24 +0000

I’m not going to bicker back and forth with you on someone else’s web site about specific semantics in your argument.

I will leave you with this though:

Free Speech IS Constitutionally protected expression which IS NOT the right to force other people to publish your thoughts.

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:13:20 +0000

“you are in fact whining about somebody not publishing your comments”

There is no whining here, I’m sharing my experience. The point isn’t that he deleted the comments, as much as he avoided the questions that ultimately made a whole community implicit in his spamming scam. If that is “whining” to you, that’s your problem, but hopefully you’ll learn someday that when someone shares their side of an issue, labeling them “whiners” only shows your own lack of maturity to look at other sides of the issue rationally.

“and trying to frame it as constitutionally protected speech.”

I know the respect of the freedom of others doesn’t mean much to a lot of Americans today, but it is a basic tenant of any definition of freedom I’ve ever cared about.

“I”m not sure someone deleting comments from their web site says as much about their character, but going around crying (anonymously)”

I didn’t make this a “constitutional” issue in any of my comments. And trust me, I’m not crying, I’m laughing at your complete lack of maturity and nothing more. But if you can’t respect the free speech of others, than you can’t possibly care much for the first amendment.

Who isn’t annonymous on the net? IF I knew your name do you honestly think it would make a difference. I’m not reknowned on the net, therefore my opinion doesn’t matter? That is far too an authoritarian viewpoint for me to ever agree with. We vote anonymously after all. It is a tenant of democracy.

“about your constitutional right to free speech being inpeded does provide a window into one”s character.”

“However, I do understand the issues — and I do know it has nothing to do with free speech.”

I never said the actual issues did have something to do with free speech, and that is why your comments are so misguided. The fact that this kid tried to hide something he was doing which was damaging to the community around the project, coupled with the fact that he was shutting out inquisitive dissent when it was convenient for him says a lot about his character. Everyone letting him “off the hook” because they think they know him is certainly at odds with the lack of respect he has shown to others and their honest rights of freedom and understanding.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:59:06 +0000

Mr. Speech,
I did not attack you. Unless your name truly IS “Free Speech” and I simply misunderstood, you are in fact whining about somebody not publishing your comments, and trying to frame it as constitutionally protected speech. I’m not sure someone deleting comments from their web site says as much about their character, but going around crying (anonymously) about your constitutional right to free speech being inpeded does provide a window into one’s character.

Please note that I have never met Mr. Mullenweg, I have never used WordPress, I don’t visit Mr. Mullenweg’s web sites regularly, and I have no vested interest in this entire matter. However, I do understand the issues — and I do know it has nothing to do with free speech.

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:56:27 +0000

Again, Tony. I didn’t say he was evil, I said that he was ethically challenged, and he proved that to me when he wouldn’t answer the questions forthrightly and tried to cover them up.

Really, if you don’t understand what the real issues are here, then read this.

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050331-211635

This issue has nothing to do with me demanding to have comments posted on his blog, the fact that he deleted my comments to cover his tracks told me about his character. And from that, I’m not surprised that the truth caught up with him.

So honestly, your attacks on me are incorrect and completely out of context.

By: David O'Hara

David O'Hara — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:29:44 +0000

I know that most people were struck by (and have commented about) your feelings on the WP issue. Oddly enough, what I found most intriguing in this post was the fact that you founded XFN and have reservations about application of the word “friend”. Don’t get me wrong, I have a few words on my own that I’m especially careful about their usage – it just struck me as funny. :)

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:33:03 +0000

Mr. “Speech”,
You should know that not everything in life is an epic battle between good and evil. Consequently, just because someone does something you don’t like or disagrees with you, that doesn’t make them evil.

Also, not every issue is about constitutionally protected speech. Additionally, free speech is not the same thing as saying you have a right to be published, but merely that the government can’t keep you from publishing.

So, post whatever you had to say to your own site, and stop complaining about having comments deleted from other peoples’ sites.

By: Daniel Stockman

Daniel Stockman — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:39:32 +0000

Free speech != Must listen. WP-Firefox payola scandal? Pardon me whilst I LMFAO.

Anyway, I’ve always valued your opinions and insights, Eric. Your reaction to this latest brouhaha has given me no reason to alter this value-judgement.

“[O]ld-school hippie-Utopian pseudo-socialist” (OSHUPS), now there’s a peculiar ideological orientation I can fully identify with! Must be why I think you’re cool ;D.

By: Free Speech

Free Speech — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:46:26 +0000

I was talking about respect for others, which he did not show me or promote by not answering questions about the ethical implications of what he was doing, and instead deleting them.

By deleting it, I was clearly shown that he was ethically challenged, and that was my point.

I didn’t say anyone had to accept my free speech on their site. Just that those who don’t respect free speech aren’t worth much, and are typically corrupt. It is the truest stamp of their character.

Of course we don’t find that out until the truth comes out in the wash.

And it has.

By: mike

mike — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:46:29 +0000

To free speech, you’re so typical of the mentality of alot of foolish internet hooligans that love to go on other people’s sites to stir the pot. On the wordpress forum, or any other online forum for that matter, you have no right to free speech. You can, however, spend your own money and build your own site, gather your own readers and then post whatever you want.