Conquer Club

Saw this story this morning. Two bloggers banned from entering the UK for the expression of their views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355

This also happened to Michael Savage a couple of years ago, if memory serves.

This is one of the offending blogs, Atlas Shrugs.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Not saying the UK doesn't have the right to bar entry, just surprised me a little who they chose to bar.

But seriously, does anyone actually LIKE bloggers anyway? Isn't a blog essentially a tweeter feed on steriods? If I don't care that

Some Tweeting Chick wrote:i WANT SOMETHING SWEET BUH I DUNO WHA..GRRRRRRRRR I HATE THIS FEELIN

then I'm not going to want to read even MORE of your thoughts on that subject! Let alone getting your opinions on current events, where I should shop, or how you really live in a bad neck of the planet.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:But seriously, does anyone actually LIKE bloggers anyway? Isn't a blog essentially a tweeter feed on steriods? If I don't care that

Some Tweeting Chick wrote:i WANT SOMETHING SWEET BUH I DUNO WHA..GRRRRRRRRR I HATE THIS FEELIN

then I'm not going to want to read even MORE of your thoughts on that subject! Let alone getting your opinions on current events, where I should shop, or how you really live in a bad neck of the planet.

Bollocks.

The world has changed. The blogosphere is becoming more and more important. All the info that is left out by mainstream media are being picked up and discussed by newsblogs. This is a way of people communicating information that is more controversial, but not per sé true or false.

So don't disregard bloggers. Keep in mind that even some politicians, scientists, economists, etc. have blogs too. If ever more communism should set on the west, the blogosphere is a way to communicate info to other people. Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

Al Gore has a blog. He should be denied entry to pretty much any country, including the US.....

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

I think what Serbia is getting at, or at least partly, is that there are many people who would take blogger's opinions as fact. The general public is very gullible and easily influenced. So with lots of people's opinions on government, the economy, the latest endangered species discovery or whatever, easily persuaded people will end up doing stupid things based on those 'facts'.

Happens all the time.

On the other hand, I generally like blogs. I use them from a business point of view and they are very beneficial.

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

Now you're just throwing big words around in an attempt to confuse and befuddle me, a simple American. An oligarchy? Hey, no one is suggesting that we should let the government be taken over by ogres and trolls here! And besides, how do you KNOW they aren't sharing information on nuclear bombs? Have you read all these blogs? I for sure haven't. Unless you've got people who can be trusted reading every single word written on every single blog, you don't know what they contain. That's just for starters. And since we agree that freedoms are inherently dangerous, given their negative effects, then I'm going to go ahead and further agree with you that less freedom = more better everything = BAN BLOGGERS.

Once again, the UK is leading the world charge in progressiveness, as waauw and I both agree.

Bollocks.

The US should deport all bloggers.

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

Now you're just throwing big words around in an attempt to confuse and befuddle me, a simple American. An oligarchy? Hey, no one is suggesting that we should let the government be taken over by ogres and trolls here! And besides, how do you KNOW they aren't sharing information on nuclear bombs? Have you read all these blogs? I for sure haven't. Unless you've got people who can be trusted reading every single word written on every single blog, you don't know what they contain. That's just for starters. And since we agree that freedoms are inherently dangerous, given their negative effects, then I'm going to go ahead and further agree with you that less freedom = more better everything = BAN BLOGGERS.

Once again, the UK is leading the world charge in progressiveness, as waauw and I both agree.

Bollocks.

You are not saying the UK should become an oligarchy, but you are suggesting means which could be used to create an oligarchy. I'm talking about limiting government power. The more power a government has, the more risk you run of becoming undemocratic. You don't even take into account how easily censorship could be abused.

And even though I said freedom has it's dangers,you've left out my comment that government censorship is even more dangerous. This is the same dilemma as communism-capitalism, with none of them being perfect, but one of them being worse than the other.

Also, do you really want to punish all bloggers because a few of them may be propagating horrible things? By this reasoning we might as well abolish the entire internet as apparently you are against people communicating against each other on it. Because that is what blogs do, people commenting on the internet in order to communicate with other people. Seriously explain to me for example what a blogger who talks about flowers would do harm?

waauw wrote:You are not saying the UK should become an oligarchy, but you are suggesting means which could be used to create an oligarchy. I'm talking about limiting government power. The more power a government has, the more risk you run of becoming undemocratic. You don't even take into account how easily censorship could be abused.

And even though I said freedom has it's dangers,you've left out my comment that government censorship is even more dangerous. This is the same dilemma as communism-capitalism, with none of them being perfect, but one of them being worse than the other.

Also, do you really want to punish all bloggers because a few of them may be propagating horrible things? By this reasoning we might as well abolish the entire internet as apparently you are against people communicating against each other on it. Because that is what blogs do, people commenting on the internet in order to communicate with other people. Seriously explain to me for example what a blogger who talks about flowers would do harm?

Addressing the bolded part:
Again, I shall state very clearly - I AM ANTI OGRES. I do not want governments run by ogres. That would not be helpful. Also, I believe it to be totally irrelevant to our discussion, but I feel you're trying to catch me out.

Addressing the underlined part:

naïveté

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of NAÏVETÉ
1: a naive remark or action
2: the quality or state of being naive

Examples of NAÏVETÉ

<her naïveté led her to leave her new car unlocked while she shopped at the mall>
<though he was streetwise, the investigative reporter regularly assumed an air of naïveté when he was interviewing confidence men, charlatans, counterfeiters, and other assorted swindlers of the general public>

More than likely, it's a FRONT. Why do you think we have espionage offices? (Wait, you're from Belgium... you may not know about espionage. I won't bore everyone else with details; you may Google it to save time and space) It might LOOK like they're discussing flowers. The blog may have pictures of flowers, descriptions of flowers, how-to-guides for planting and caring for flowers, every possible detail you can think of, and details no one would ever of thought of.... DO YOU NOT SEE?!??!! That is what they want you to think the blog is about!!! when everyone knows in reality it's about some nefarious plot to destroy all of humankind, all of planet earth, and every cute little puppy and kitten alive today! THAT IS WHY FREEDOMS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND BLOGGERS ARE HIDDEN TERRORISTS.

I am shocked and appalled that you are so blinded that you cannot see this Clear and Present danger. The Brits obviously can. But, I have to keep reminding myself that you are Belgian, and you haven't had to deal with global issues since 1945. TERRORISM IS REAL PEOPLE. We can never be too safe, and bloggers are a threat to the entire universe. They're online, after all, and since the reach of the internet is limitless, thanks to wireless technologies, therefore, their potential threat capabilities are also limitless.

Bollocks.

Gareth Price has "an ambivalent relationship with free speech."

No shit, Sherlock.

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

Now you're just throwing big words around in an attempt to confuse and befuddle me, a simple American. An oligarchy? Hey, no one is suggesting that we should let the government be taken over by ogres and trolls here! And besides, how do you KNOW they aren't sharing information on nuclear bombs? Have you read all these blogs? I for sure haven't. Unless you've got people who can be trusted reading every single word written on every single blog, you don't know what they contain. That's just for starters. And since we agree that freedoms are inherently dangerous, given their negative effects, then I'm going to go ahead and further agree with you that less freedom = more better everything = BAN BLOGGERS.

Once again, the UK is leading the world charge in progressiveness, as waauw and I both agree.

Bollocks.

lolwut

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:Being against blogs is being against freedom of information and freedome of speech on the internet.

Would that be the worst thing in the world? What if there is too much information? What if it's unsafe for certain people to know certain things? Can't you have too much freedom?

Bollocks.

we're not talking about sharing technology of how to build a nuclear bomb here. Do you really think the best way forward is to have a censorship curtain like China, where everybody who has a different opinion than the government gets blocked? This would turn democracy into an oligarchy.

A lot of politicians already have the tendency to be corrupt or egocentric, what is to happen when nobody they can just get rid of everybody who opposes their opinions on policy? Because that is what happens when you transfer too much power to a central government. I agree freedom can have negative effects too, but a society based on freedoms is the best system we have at the moment.

Now you're just throwing big words around in an attempt to confuse and befuddle me, a simple American. An oligarchy? Hey, no one is suggesting that we should let the government be taken over by ogres and trolls here! And besides, how do you KNOW they aren't sharing information on nuclear bombs? Have you read all these blogs? I for sure haven't. Unless you've got people who can be trusted reading every single word written on every single blog, you don't know what they contain. That's just for starters. And since we agree that freedoms are inherently dangerous, given their negative effects, then I'm going to go ahead and further agree with you that less freedom = more better everything = BAN BLOGGERS.

Once again, the UK is leading the world charge in progressiveness, as waauw and I both agree.

Bollocks.

lolwut

Serbia says his favourite colour is ochre.

Serbia wrote:Addressing the bolded part:
Again, I shall state very clearly - I AM ANTI OGRES. I do not want governments run by ogres. That would not be helpful. Also, I believe it to be totally irrelevant to our discussion, but I feel you're trying to catch me out.

Addressing the underlined part:

it's not entirely irrelevant to talk of the power of the state when talking about full censorship of the internet. Just look of which importance censorship is to the totalitarian régimes all over the world.
Look at history. Freedom of information is the enemy to any totalitarian régime.

Examples:
Hitler, Stalin and Mao. All three of them forbade people to speak up against them.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Serbia wrote:naïveté

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of NAÏVETÉ
1: a naive remark or action
2: the quality or state of being naive

Examples of NAÏVETÉ

<her naïveté led her to leave her new car unlocked while she shopped at the mall>
<though he was streetwise, the investigative reporter regularly assumed an air of naïveté when he was interviewing confidence men, charlatans, counterfeiters, and other assorted swindlers of the general public>

don't tell me what naïveté means. It's a french word and I've known how to speak french since I was little kid. My fathers a 'francophone' fyi.

Serbia wrote:More than likely, it's a FRONT. Why do you think we have espionage offices? (Wait, you're from Belgium... you may not know about espionage. I won't bore everyone else with details; you may Google it to save time and space) It might LOOK like they're discussing flowers. The blog may have pictures of flowers, descriptions of flowers, how-to-guides for planting and caring for flowers, every possible detail you can think of, and details no one would ever of thought of.... DO YOU NOT SEE?!??!! That is what they want you to think the blog is about!!! when everyone knows in reality it's about some nefarious plot to destroy all of humankind, all of planet earth, and every cute little puppy and kitten alive today! THAT IS WHY FREEDOMS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND BLOGGERS ARE HIDDEN TERRORISTS.

Do you even know what a blog is? Here's the word's definition by the Oxford dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:Definition of blog
noun
a personal website or web page on which an individual records opinions, links to other sites, etc. on a regular basis.

Do you even realise how your comment is full of generalizations? Here's a couple of bloggers, who according to your comments are terrorists:

• Niall Ferguson(Harvard professor in financial and economic history)
• Paul Krugman(Nobel prize winner in economics)
• Dalai Lama
• Tom Cruise
• ...

Serbia wrote:I am shocked and appalled that you are so blinded that you cannot see this Clear and Present danger. The Brits obviously can. But, I have to keep reminding myself that you are Belgian, and you haven't had to deal with global issues since 1945.TERRORISM IS REAL PEOPLE. We can never be too safe, and bloggers are a threat to the entire universe. They're online, after all, and since the reach of the internet is limitless, thanks to wireless technologies, therefore, their potential threat capabilities are also limitless.

Bollocks.

You do realise that america's interventionism is precisely the reason why so many terrorists aim for the USA? If only you people would let other people decide what to do in their own country, you wouldn't have so much hatred towards america. Do you honestly think the entire world wants to be governed by the US? Do you think it's a coincidence that the USA is one of the most hated country on the planet?

I prefer dieing before living in a totalitarian régime where freedom of speech and freedom of the press is forbidden. If ever my country would strip it's entire population of all it's freedoms, I'd gladly join a resistance and fight a civil war to get it back. I rather die free, than live in captivity, even if it means giving up some safety.

saxitoxin wrote:I thought the title of this thread was UK Bangs Bloggers.

Thought it was gonna be like some kinda cross between Girls Gone Wild and CES.

Ukraine Bans Loggers. It's about deforestation.

This isn't anything new to the US. The US government declared Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Farley Mowatt persona non gratta in the 70's.

THIS CALLS FOR THE MEGA RESPONSE QUOTIENT

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:Addressing the bolded part:
Again, I shall state very clearly - I AM ANTI OGRES. I do not want governments run by ogres. That would not be helpful. Also, I believe it to be totally irrelevant to our discussion, but I feel you're trying to catch me out.

Addressing the underlined part:

it's not entirely irrelevant to talk of the power of the state when talking about full censorship of the internet. Just look of which importance censorship is to the totalitarian régimes all over the world.
Look at history. Freedom of information is the enemy to any totalitarian régime.

Examples:
Hitler, Stalin and Mao. All three of them forbade people to speak up against them.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Are you really equating George Orwell, a literary genius, to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? And I won't even get into how it's totally unfair to compare Mao in any way to Hitler or Stalin. At least those two operated in Europe, but Mao was in a completely different continent. Again though, we're talking about BLOGGERS, not "washed up dead former world leaders who weren't very successful or they'd still be alive today". Sometimes I think you're just inventing arguments for the sake of being confrontational.

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:naïveté

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of NAÏVETÉ
1: a naive remark or action
2: the quality or state of being naive

Examples of NAÏVETÉ

<her naïveté led her to leave her new car unlocked while she shopped at the mall>
<though he was streetwise, the investigative reporter regularly assumed an air of naïveté when he was interviewing confidence men, charlatans, counterfeiters, and other assorted swindlers of the general public>

don't tell me what naïveté means. It's a french word and I've known how to speak french since I was little kid. My fathers a 'francophone' fyi.

Wow dude, no call to get all violent on me! I'm American, and I am a native English speaker, but there are still English words that I don't fully know the meanings to. And "francophone" - Ok, so your Dad supported Julio Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Firstly, congrats that you have an old dad, I guess... and second, why do you continue to bring up completely irrelevant items to our BLOGGERS conversation?! I don't see how saying "hey guess what, my dad was a fascist, ergo, bloggers should be free to tell the common rabble how to make bombs and detonate them in Central Park, yeah?" is a valid argument. Call me an Idiot American, but I don't see it.

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:More than likely, it's a FRONT. Why do you think we have espionage offices? (Wait, you're from Belgium... you may not know about espionage. I won't bore everyone else with details; you may Google it to save time and space) It might LOOK like they're discussing flowers. The blog may have pictures of flowers, descriptions of flowers, how-to-guides for planting and caring for flowers, every possible detail you can think of, and details no one would ever of thought of.... DO YOU NOT SEE?!??!! That is what they want you to think the blog is about!!! when everyone knows in reality it's about some nefarious plot to destroy all of humankind, all of planet earth, and every cute little puppy and kitten alive today! THAT IS WHY FREEDOMS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND BLOGGERS ARE HIDDEN TERRORISTS.

Do you even know what a blog is? Here's the word's definition by the Oxford dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:Definition of blog
noun
a personal website or web page on which an individual records opinions, links to other sites, etc. on a regular basis.

Do you even realise how your comment is full of generalizations? Here's a couple of bloggers, who according to your comments are terrorists:

• Niall Ferguson(Harvard professor in financial and economic history)
• Paul Krugman(Nobel prize winner in economics)
• Dalai Lama
• Tom Cruise
• ...

I'm starting to get the feeling like you're just making things up as you go along now. You can't just say "oh, Tom Cruise is a blogger, so he's a terrorist too!" without providing evidence. These are serious claims you're making here. And you DO know that Dalai Lama is a TITLE, right? There is more than one Dalai Lama? Just like "President of the United States" - there are several, even more than one currently alive, yeah? If you're going to out "Dalai Lama" as a terrorist, it might be tidy to identify WHICH ONE. Also, I'm sure a bunch of Indian people will be upset to know you're branding their guy a blogging terrorist without any proof whatsoever.

Also, I consider it right cheeky that after I provided you with a definition of a French word, even though you aren't French, you get all mad and start quoting Franco at me, yet then turn around and give me the definition to an English word, even though I'm not English, and I'll BET you'll really protest if I start quoting Che Guevara back at you!

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:I am shocked and appalled that you are so blinded that you cannot see this Clear and Present danger. The Brits obviously can. But, I have to keep reminding myself that you are Belgian, and you haven't had to deal with global issues since 1945.TERRORISM IS REAL PEOPLE. We can never be too safe, and bloggers are a threat to the entire universe. They're online, after all, and since the reach of the internet is limitless, thanks to wireless technologies, therefore, their potential threat capabilities are also limitless.

Bollocks.

You do realise that america's interventionism is precisely the reason why so many terrorists aim for the USA? If only you people would let other people decide what to do in their own country, you wouldn't have so much hatred towards america. Do you honestly think the entire world wants to be governed by the US? Do you think it's a coincidence that the USA is one of the most hated country on the planet?

I prefer dieing before living in a totalitarian régime where freedom of speech and freedom of the press is forbidden. If ever my country would strip it's entire population of all it's freedoms, I'd gladly join a resistance and fight a civil war to get it back. I rather die free, than live in captivity, even if it means giving up some safety.

Alright, I was just guessing before, but now I'm positive I'm simply being trolled. This is totally off our original story, which is about banning bloggers, something we've both agreed is a good, sound, necessary principle, due to the inherent evils of freedom. But, I've now sniffed out the true source of your anger and issues - you hate America. See, with people like yourself, it always eventually comes out. You're jealous of America, jealous of our successes, jealous of our dangerous freedoms (for some odd reason I can't fathom), jealous for jealousy's sake, I suppose. I don't believe the whole world wants to be governed by the USA, and I don't want that myself. I'm tired of my country needing to be the world's police force. Go get your own police world! And dude, I want you to be free too. Let's just be careful not to push those freedoms past the point of no return, and we'll all be in agreement again.

BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, please, for the love of all things that are awesome (such as puppies), can we stay on topic, and discuss bloggers, and not Franco, the many Dalai Lamas, ogres rising up and ruling nations, and the like? Please? I really don't want to be a party to your derailing of this thread.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:THIS CALLS FOR THE MEGA RESPONSE QUOTIENT

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:Addressing the bolded part:
Again, I shall state very clearly - I AM ANTI OGRES. I do not want governments run by ogres. That would not be helpful. Also, I believe it to be totally irrelevant to our discussion, but I feel you're trying to catch me out.

Addressing the underlined part:

it's not entirely irrelevant to talk of the power of the state when talking about full censorship of the internet. Just look of which importance censorship is to the totalitarian régimes all over the world.
Look at history. Freedom of information is the enemy to any totalitarian régime.

Examples:
Hitler, Stalin and Mao. All three of them forbade people to speak up against them.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Are you really equating George Orwell, a literary genius, to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? And I won't even get into how it's totally unfair to compare Mao in any way to Hitler or Stalin. At least those two operated in Europe, but Mao was in a completely different continent. Again though, we're talking about BLOGGERS, not "washed up dead former world leaders who weren't very successful or they'd still be alive today". Sometimes I think you're just inventing arguments for the sake of being confrontational.

I didn't compare George Orwell to dictators? I quoted him as this specific line is relevant to freedom of speech and feedom of information.
And Hitler, Stalin and Mao are all relevant as all three of them are examples of people who wanted to oppress these forms of freedom, just as you are suggesting. Because that is what blogs are all about, expressing opinion and distributing information.

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:naïveté

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of NAÏVETÉ
1: a naive remark or action
2: the quality or state of being naive

Examples of NAÏVETÉ

<her naïveté led her to leave her new car unlocked while she shopped at the mall>
<though he was streetwise, the investigative reporter regularly assumed an air of naïveté when he was interviewing confidence men, charlatans, counterfeiters, and other assorted swindlers of the general public>

don't tell me what naïveté means. It's a french word and I've known how to speak french since I was little kid. My fathers a 'francophone' fyi.

Wow dude, no call to get all violent on me! I'm American, and I am a native English speaker, but there are still English words that I don't fully know the meanings to. And "francophone" - Ok, so your Dad supported Julio Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Firstly, congrats that you have an old dad, I guess... and second, why do you continue to bring up completely irrelevant items to our BLOGGERS conversation?! I don't see how saying "hey guess what, my dad was a fascist, ergo, bloggers should be free to tell the common rabble how to make bombs and detonate them in Central Park, yeah?" is a valid argument. Call me an Idiot American, but I don't see it.

francophone = french word referring to people who have the french language as their native language
Also you are the one mentioning french words acting as if I don't know them.

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:More than likely, it's a FRONT. Why do you think we have espionage offices? (Wait, you're from Belgium... you may not know about espionage. I won't bore everyone else with details; you may Google it to save time and space) It might LOOK like they're discussing flowers. The blog may have pictures of flowers, descriptions of flowers, how-to-guides for planting and caring for flowers, every possible detail you can think of, and details no one would ever of thought of.... DO YOU NOT SEE?!??!! That is what they want you to think the blog is about!!! when everyone knows in reality it's about some nefarious plot to destroy all of humankind, all of planet earth, and every cute little puppy and kitten alive today! THAT IS WHY FREEDOMS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND BLOGGERS ARE HIDDEN TERRORISTS.

Do you even know what a blog is? Here's the word's definition by the Oxford dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:Definition of blog
noun
a personal website or web page on which an individual records opinions, links to other sites, etc. on a regular basis.

Do you even realise how your comment is full of generalizations? Here's a couple of bloggers, who according to your comments are terrorists:

• Niall Ferguson(Harvard professor in financial and economic history)
• Paul Krugman(Nobel prize winner in economics)
• Dalai Lama
• Tom Cruise
• ...

I'm starting to get the feeling like you're just making things up as you go along now. You can't just say "oh, Tom Cruise is a blogger, so he's a terrorist too!" without providing evidence. These are serious claims you're making here. And you DO know that Dalai Lama is a TITLE, right? There is more than one Dalai Lama? Just like "President of the United States" - there are several, even more than one currently alive, yeah? If you're going to out "Dalai Lama" as a terrorist, it might be tidy to identify WHICH ONE. Also, I'm sure a bunch of Indian people will be upset to know you're branding their guy a blogging terrorist without any proof whatsoever.

Also, I consider it right cheeky that after I provided you with a definition of a French word, even though you aren't French, you get all mad and start quoting Franco at me, yet then turn around and give me the definition to an English word, even though I'm not English, and I'll BET you'll really protest if I start quoting Che Guevara back at you!

I'm not saying Tom Cruise and the Dalai Lama are terrorists, you are. Look back at your own text. You basically called bloggers, in general, terrorists. Nowhere did you mention any specification. Until now you've kept on rambling without making any distinctions between any kinds of bloggers.

And I know Dalai Lama is a title, but you're wrong on there being more than one Dalai Lama. They get replaced everytime the old one dies.
There are multiple high lama's, but not Dalai Lama. This specific title refers to the head of Tibetan buddhism.

Serbia wrote:

waauw wrote:

Serbia wrote:I am shocked and appalled that you are so blinded that you cannot see this Clear and Present danger. The Brits obviously can. But, I have to keep reminding myself that you are Belgian, and you haven't had to deal with global issues since 1945.TERRORISM IS REAL PEOPLE. We can never be too safe, and bloggers are a threat to the entire universe. They're online, after all, and since the reach of the internet is limitless, thanks to wireless technologies, therefore, their potential threat capabilities are also limitless.

Bollocks.

You do realise that america's interventionism is precisely the reason why so many terrorists aim for the USA? If only you people would let other people decide what to do in their own country, you wouldn't have so much hatred towards america. Do you honestly think the entire world wants to be governed by the US? Do you think it's a coincidence that the USA is one of the most hated country on the planet?

I prefer dieing before living in a totalitarian régime where freedom of speech and freedom of the press is forbidden. If ever my country would strip it's entire population of all it's freedoms, I'd gladly join a resistance and fight a civil war to get it back. I rather die free, than live in captivity, even if it means giving up some safety.

Alright, I was just guessing before, but now I'm positive I'm simply being trolled. This is totally off our original story, which is about banning bloggers, something we've both agreed is a good, sound, necessary principle, due to the inherent evils of freedom. But, I've now sniffed out the true source of your anger and issues - you hate America. See, with people like yourself, it always eventually comes out. You're jealous of America, jealous of our successes, jealous of our dangerous freedoms (for some odd reason I can't fathom), jealous for jealousy's sake, I suppose. I don't believe the whole world wants to be governed by the USA, and I don't want that myself. I'm tired of my country needing to be the world's police force. Go get your own police world! And dude, I want you to be free too. Let's just be careful not to push those freedoms past the point of no return, and we'll all be in agreement again.

BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, please, for the love of all things that are awesome (such as puppies), can we stay on topic, and discuss bloggers, and not Franco, the many Dalai Lamas, ogres rising up and ruling nations, and the like? Please? I really don't want to be a party to your derailing of this thread.

Bollocks.

Dafuq??? where did I agree banning bloggers is good? Either you are the one trolling or you have an IQ below average. And why the hell would I be jealous of the US? I despise american policy.

ugh I hate trolls. Foed.

waauw wrote:ugh I hate trolls. Foed.

Do you realize you just foed the most Grade-A slab of man meat on Conquer Club?!?!

Army of GOD wrote:The US should deport all bloggers.

I suggest to the UK.

Serbia wrote:tl;dr

That being said Serbia's comments come off more as slightly sarcastic to overly dramatic and outrageous, therefor I think that he is creating a mini trap thread?