|
|
Post by rlh on Jan 6, 2007 8:48:09 GMT -5
It totally agree StLVuFan....that's what I originally was trying to tell him, but was shouted down as usual. I do disagree with one premise though, I not only think he is going for the shock value of using such words and phrases, but I do believe he sees himself as some sort of "conservative" martyr who needs to lead the rest of us poor misguided souls out of the darkness. The fact that we agree, as I stated, with his original premise means nothing. I guess I'm not meant to understand...
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 11:13:27 GMT -5
There you go again. Speak for yourself. You are the only misguided soul who needs to be led out of the darkness. 
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 11:45:18 GMT -5
Of course I'm anti-censorship. What are you surprised about? The fact that I chose to remove the signature? Now I was not going to be banned if I left it there. The administrators told me what to remove and I did. My decision was not caving in because of fear of getting banned. In fact, if they would have pushed the issue that far, in other words if they would have forced me to remove the signature, I would have dug my heels in and let them ban me. It was my decision because I frankly respected their choice not to ban me and their choice to let this issue be brought to a public forum for discussion. And I will continue to make my views known about this issue on this off-topic thread. So I decided to remove it because the administrator, 04, was obviously irritated that the discussion spilled over into the Valpo Basketball thread and it would remain there in some small way if my signature was still there. I see his point about not wanting the issue headlined in the sports section. Yet, they still would have allowed it because frankly the question in my signature was a good one and the content was not untrue. And I still think this is an important issue for any Christian university to take on. What they did require me to do was to remove the word C-U-N-T. And I complied with that demand because I agree with their reasoning. This reaction from them and others who have been offended by the use of that word should, hopefully, wake up those folks in the administration who allow this play to be held on campus and challenge them to take a closer look at it and decide whether or not it is consistent with the values of a Lutheran university. After all, they approved it. I hope they do take a second look at it and do the right thing and remove it because it promotes everything that is contrary to biblical and Christian values. Just think about that for a moment.
So why are you surprised? I really don't understand.
Now if you are asking how is it that I can be anti-censorship and yet call for the removal of a play (which you view to be censorship), then I refer you to the comments of the president of Providence College who did remove the play from campus but who allowed discussion of it anywhere on campus:
and
Hope this helps my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 14:53:33 GMT -5
I'll send you a pm about this... You still going to send this? |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 15:17:30 GMT -5
I have given you a board, basically to yourself to vent, fight the liberals, etc. but sexual, obscene or vulgar topics will not be allowed. Do you realize how much you sound like God talking like this? Don't let the almighty power of givething and takething away as an administrator of a puny little sports message board go to your head. |
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 6, 2007 15:46:46 GMT -5
I'll send you a pm about this... You still going to send this? Yeah, things have just been crazy since I had the chance to think about yesterday. I'll send it to you today. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 15:51:06 GMT -5
You still going to send this? Yeah, things have just been crazy since I had the chance to think about yesterday. I'll send it to you today. No rush. Merci. Gotta go watch the game now. |
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 6, 2007 16:03:07 GMT -5
I have given you a board, basically to yourself to vent, fight the liberals, etc. but sexual, obscene or vulgar topics will not be allowed. Do you realize how much you sound like God talking like this? Don't let the almighty power of givething and takething away as an administrator of a puny little sports message board go to your head. I didn't know God created message boards... It only sounds how you take it online...  |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 6, 2007 17:04:35 GMT -5
Do you realize how much you sound like God talking like this? Don't let the almighty power of givething and takething away as an administrator of a puny little sports message board go to your head. I didn't know God created message boards... It only sounds how you take it online... I am not worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 7, 2007 20:20:39 GMT -5
Of course I'm anti-censorship. What are you surprised about? The fact that I chose to remove the signature? Now I was not going to be banned if I left it there. The administrators told me what to remove and I did. My decision was not caving in because of fear of getting banned. In fact, if they would have pushed the issue that far, in other words if they would have forced me to remove the signature, I would have dug my heels in and let them ban me. It was my decision because I frankly respected their choice not to ban me and their choice to let this issue be brought to a public forum for discussion. And I will continue to make my views known about this issue on this off-topic thread. So I decided to remove it because the administrator, 04, was obviously irritated that the discussion spilled over into the Valpo Basketball thread and it would remain there in some small way if my signature was still there. I see his point about not wanting the issue headlined in the sports section. Yet, they still would have allowed it because frankly the question in my signature was a good one and the content was not untrue. And I still think this is an important issue for any Christian university to take on. What they did require me to do was to remove the word C-U-N-T. And I complied with that demand because I agree with their reasoning. This reaction from them and others who have been offended by the use of that word should, hopefully, wake up those folks in the administration who allow this play to be held on campus and challenge them to take a closer look at it and decide whether or not it is consistent with the values of a Lutheran university. After all, they approved it. I hope they do take a second look at it and do the right thing and remove it because it promotes everything that is contrary to biblical and Christian values. Just think about that for a moment. So why are you surprised? I really don't understand. Now if you are asking how is it that I can be anti-censorship and yet call for the removal of a play (which you view to be censorship), then I refer you to the comments of the president of Providence College who did remove the play from campus but who allowed discussion of it anywhere on campus: and Hope this helps my friend. See, that's the thing. I WOULD call that censorship, and again, remember I said I'm for it in certain circumstances. This would probably be one of them. But it IS censorship, at least up to a point. It's not censorship on a grand scale, as I'll elaborate on further down. With that in mind, vavufan said, "but censoring from adults in college is not [appropriate]." And you replied, "You couldn't be more wrong.". Was that meant to specifically contradict the notion that censorship is wrong, or was it referring to something else in vavufan's post? As a matter of fact, I agree with the sources you quoted - at least generally speaking. That's why I stated that I am not anti-censorship per se. The thing is, I had thought you WERE, and was surprised to hear that you are not, that's all. Actually, I'm not sure that this is censorship anyway, since the group could certainly stage the play elsewhere on their own and the U. could not legally stop them. In fact, the U. would very possibly be promoting free speech by declining to provide facilities and funding for the play, assuming there are those within the U. community who are offended by the play. In other words, this is limited censorship. ohmygod, are we beginning to see eye-to-eye on this Rick? Scary  At the same time, if I were President Harre, I could perhaps be pursuaded to host the play on one show-stopping condition: that it be hosted in such a way that the play itself is open to criticism and that anyone who is offended by it is allowed to speak out about it and be heard. I probably would want to insist that such people see the play, but would also want to spare such people any level of viewing they were unable to stomach. I'm just not sure how one would pull all that off, it does seem daunting. I would of course make sure that plenty of alternatives for achieving the same stated objective were also brought front and center for serious consideration. And I would subject myself to the play first before I came to any decision. But I'm not him. I don't even play him on TV. And I don't blame anyone for being skeptical about such a radical suggestion. The only thing I can say for sure is that after seeing the play, if the impression I'm getting here - not just from you - is valid, there is no way I'd agree to allow the play to be staged on campus in such a way that the play itself is allowed to set the agenda for discussion. But see - getting back to the origin of this whole tangent - I also wouldn't use this play as my reason for tolerating the "You Suck" cheer. There's no such thing as "less" wrong and "more" wrong. Things are wrong (or right), period. I also think having a 2 minute conversation with someone and then immediately labeling them a Hollywood Liberal is flat-out wrong and I have not backed off from my refusal to tolerate it. I resurrect this wound primarily to illustrate what I mean when I say I thougth you were strenuously and unconditionally anti-censorship: when you are confronted with the kind of reaction I'm illustrating, your anti-censorship kicks into high gear and you sniff out attempts to ban you from a forum. I'm not complaining about that; I actually respect it (with a caveat which I shared with you that one night at the ARC last year). I guess I just concluded from those times that you believe that silencing someone is the worst evil there is, which is why when you initially weighed in on the "You suck" debate, I mistakenly concluded that you would not be for banning the play from the VU campus. I've probably said enough, so I'll stop now. P.S. to everyone else, I believe Rick and I have put this "Hollywood Liberal" thing behind us, and unless he wants to resurrect it, I want everyone else to know that I want you all to leave it alone as well, especially on my behalf. On the White Sox fan listserve, they have a term called "List Treasure." Rick is a List Treasure here, to me at least. Never a dull moment, unique, an integral part of the identity of this board. Don't change a hair for me, Rick, not if ya care for me. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 7, 2007 20:30:02 GMT -5
I do disagree with one premise though, I not only think he is going for the shock value of using such words and phrases, but I do believe he sees himself as some sort of "conservative" martyr who needs to lead the rest of us poor misguided souls out of the darkness. Actually, that is not a disagreement with what I was saying, except that I wouldn't characterize it quite that way. Or I might say, what's wrong with that? Maybe it is true; it's conceivable in life that such voices are needed from time to time because the rest of us are blind. I have no serious argument against this principle. I have a problem when it is misapplied, but I'm not against it by definition. I actually am not convinced that Rick sees himself as a martyr. I merely think it is a dangerous temptation that we all are susceptible to, myself included. I assume that Rick sees himself as a prophet, and while prophets are not nice people, they do sometimes come to us on the highest authority possible, an authority I am loathe to mess with (I'll mess with Rick all the time, mind you, but not that authority!) |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 7, 2007 21:42:16 GMT -5
St.Louieee wrote:
The whole post was wrong, not just that last statement. Let's see how he feels in another ten years or so. My guess is that he won't be so serenely idealistic about all of this once he sees what peer pressure can bring to bear upon his children over the years even though they may have indeed been brought up "properly."
The university allowed something which is contrary to its mission as a Christian university. If Lucifer's minions and other liberals were to put on a play (excuse me, they already have for the last few years), you have to take a stand based on one's "deepest values", in the words of the president of Providence College. I agree with that. In my opinion, Valpo University, in allowing this play on campus, has demonstrated a weak spine and is exercising stupidity as well as moral cowardice all in the name of tolerance and a false academic freedom, which is not license to do and say whatever one wants. Anything that attempts to undermine the sacred Truth so ostentatiously as does the production of that play should be beaten down with a Holy resolve whenever and wherever it can be found. If truth is relative, which many liberal theologians believe and perhaps even the leadership at Valparaiso University believe, then none of this should matter to them. Let anyone put on a play with any content they wish regardless of how vulgar or contrary to the deeply-held values and beliefs of the university they are. Anything goes in the name of academic freedom and free speech.
No, I would have to say that in any Christian institution, (even in a university) there are limits and boundaries placed upon certain kinds of speech and actions just as there are limits to free speech in our free government.(Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) And it would be a serious case of gross negligence for anyone in a leadership position of a Christian university to allow the bastardization of any of its sacred principles and beliefs - exemplified by, for just one example, allowing on campus the kind of filth represented in the VM play. So yes, I am not completely anti-censorship. Read the summary below in my signature from the president of Providence College. I agree wholeheartedly with it.
And what is even worse are the actions of any administration if and when they attempt to censor those who might wish to bring these things to light. Then they are compounding their moral cowardice by stifling free speech and the pursuit of the truth. That is more evil than the spinelessness of allowing the play. And it is that kind of censorship that I find despicable and would fight to the death against.
God help us. We just might agree here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 7, 2007 21:46:54 GMT -5
St. Louieeee wrote: I was reacting to the double standard and the hypocrisy. Now I don't really know if there is a standard, but I do know it was a double standard. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 8, 2007 0:13:43 GMT -5
St. Louieeee wrote: I was reacting to the double standard and the hypocrisy. Now I don't really know if there is a standard, but I do know it was a double standard. Ah. From the University Admin, yes, I see your point. I don't know that those on this board who were complaining about the "You Suck" cheer are also among those who support the play, though. |
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Jan 8, 2007 2:50:41 GMT -5
I think you'll find that Mr. Rick is in error (dare we say that) in his beliefs about us. Some of us, as stated, agree with his stand on the play...just not the use of the language he chooses to post in a public forum. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me, but then I don't have his superior intellect obviously. There are women and probably even children who read this board and in some cases use it, and should not be subjected to that kind of language...and that has nothing to do with the play itself which is disgusting, and yes I have seen some of it. This is my last post on this subject, this thread has gotten ridiculous and boring.
|
|
