On July 10, 2007 at 12:01, GPeck said...
Greg, you completely missed my point--My point, once again, is:
Despite the perceived "idiocy" or "uselessness" of
posted messages, a truly free forum to discuss them must
let them be exchanged.
While Daniel has the "right" to choose what can and cannot
be discussed on his forums, he does his readers a disservice
by becoming the "sole decider" of what is good commentary
and what isn't good commentary.
And, I will be the first to say that most indications
are that Daniel is not influenced by his paid banner ads.
But, there's just the "possibility of influcence" when
the same page listing his "There will be no more discussion
about Universal Remote Control" message has a flashy paid
banner ad at the top from... Universal Remote Control.
- George Peck -
Mr. Peck:
Read what OTAHD wrote, and what Daniel wrote, and you'll see that none of us missed your point at all.
You are making insinuations of impropriety that cannot be left sitting there without a rebuttal.
Since you are careful to use phrases like "... one would hope that..." and "... most indications are..." you try to deflect the fact that you are insinuating that Daniel has done something that has no place in a public forum.
It has been clearly explained to you why it was done; that it has no relationship to any particular manufacturer; and that a public forum such as this is not the place for vitriolic name-calling, which by definition, is NOT good commentary.
So, your point was made, and your insinuations noted, and your lack of understanding of the reason why Daniel closed the thread is documented as well.
Greg
