Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

Hello; Interesting that such a fuss has arisen from my comment about the poster incident. The essence of my comment was that both parties were wrong ( made bad moves) in the poster incident. That was as far as my comment went. So much has been falsely implied and twisted since then.

One is on a high horse about UK law. Thing is whether a law was broken was never any part of my first comment. I did not check to see that the incident took place in the UK. I focused on the actions of the two parties. One tore down a poster of the other. The other taped a razor blade so as to booby trap. Both action were a bad move was the full extent of my comment.

It is bad to damage another's property. It is bad to set a trap which hurts another. Clear enough right.

The interesting thing is they seem to think they are getting over on me in this little dust up. I think it is kinda funny at this point.

I also find some humor in that so far none have answered the betta fish question. Maybe if I tell which side I took, then they could take the other side. If they go first they may wind up on the same side as me. Naw, I will not tell which side I took yet.

Sponsored

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Thing is I get to decide what matters to me. Not at all interested in UK law. Not at all interested in what message was on either poster. Only things of interest, to me, are the actions of the individuals in the scope of both doing a bad thing. Legal or not the one should not have ripped down the poster. Legal or not the other should not have used a razor blade.

A bad episode started on a tropical fish forum around three years ago. A forum member (call her FM) described how a co worker ( call him CW)was keeping a betta fish in a bowl on his desk. The betta was not being kept well in the opinion of FM. FM decided to do something about it and took the betta fish home with her to give it better, in her opinion, care.
FM got on the fish forum telling the story and bragging about her actions. Right away many other fish forum members started posting what a good thing she had done, even the site moderators. FM got lots of likes. FM was basking in the praise for a time.

After a while one of the other members (call him OM) ask questions about the details of the action which was getting so much praise. Turns out FM had taken the betta fish without getting permission from CW. Had not even talked to him at all about the conditions of the fish before taking the fish. Had not tried to instruct CW about how to care for the fish. In fact all CW knew was his fish was gone.

OM reckoned she had stolen the fish and asked if the fish forum site was OK with supporting and condoning the theft of someone's personal property. Well for what may have been legal reasons the top moderator had to reverse his stance and say that it is indeed wrong to steal another's property. As any reading this can figure sides were taken and a bitter feud broke out among the members. This is a true story by the way.

I will not say just yet which side I took. I will ask which side you and Jon would have taken. All others feel to join in. I will make a guess based on the most recent law and order comments you two have made that you will side against the thief. Curious and awaiting a response.

I would have been an adult about it and had a conversation regarding proper husbandry of the fish. I would not have taken the fish home. So what?

You think it is a bad thing to take down a poster somone places in a public place. However, no one has the right to post anything they want in/on public property. Removal of such a poster is perfectly legal and moral. The message is irrelevant.

Oh, and you are obviously just a blow-hard. Won't even read an article that is at the heart of a discussion that you so want to go your way? Nice way to figuratively stick your head in the sand.

How about the Constitution - have you read that in this century?

 

[CJJon]

I can think of a lot of people that would have done it for free for you

They don't use a thumb though, just want to be clear on that.

 

[sk47]

Is a poster mounted in public space personal property or does it become public property when affixed to public property?

There is no question that "booby trapping" is illegal, whether in public space or private space. Why? Because the harm it causes is indiscriminate. In the case of the sign, for example, a child would have suffered the same fate. Lesson learned for the child? Hmm..hopefully, our society is less callous than to think removing a poster from public space warrants being cut by a razor blade.

Hello; I agree with the second paragraph for sure. The first gets too deep into the weeds. Lets take the notion of a public place out of it for a moment. That is what I did when I first thought about it. I only considered the poster as personal property. Not if it was illegally posted.
In that vein the cut woman intended to put up her own poster and that is conveniently dismissed by some. Not sure about every where buy intent matters lots of places.

OK, try this. Look at my initial comments using a bulletin board place set up for anyone to post on. That was closer to the way I looked at it. Never considered the part about posting in the specific place. If the posting place was illegal is all you can come up with, then a weak argument.

Also the cut woman had a poster with her to put up as I have mentioned a few times. So in one way the two women cancel each other out in terms of illegal posting. Both were were to post in the same place.

As pointless as this dust up is in one way, it does shed light on the way various parties have a world view.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Had to go back a few pages to find an example of how you were on the side of how content of the poster mattered. So you are one of the three after all.

Do me now.

I've gone out of my way to say the content mattered not.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Did not take long to find an example of your "crass" behavior.

You really can't see that YOU are the one with behavior problems here, can you? You complain about imagined name calling and put downs and that is all that you do! Incessantly!

You are one of the most stubborn passive-aggressive people I have run across on the net. How you cannot have any self-awareness in this regard is fascinating to me.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I agree with the second paragraph for sure. The first gets too deep into the weeds. Lets take the notion of a public place out of it for a moment. That is what I did when I first thought about it. I only considered the poster as personal property. Not if it was illegally posted.
In that vein the cut woman intended to put up her own poster and that is conveniently dismissed by some. Not sure about every where buy intent matters lots of places.

OK, try this. Look at my initial comments using a bulletin board place set up for anyone to post on. That was closer to the way I looked at it. Never considered the part about posting in the specific place. If the posting place was illegal is all you can come up with, then a weak argument.

Also the cut woman had a poster with her to put up as I have mentioned a few times. So in one way the two women cancel each other out in terms of illegal posting. Both were were to post in the same place.

As pointless as this dust up is in one way, it does shed light on the way various parties have a world view.

Sure, modify the scenario to fit your argument. Take a mind reader to figure out what you are talking about if the scenario in your head is different than reality.

 

[sk47]

I would have been an adult about it and had a conversation regarding proper husbandry of the fish. I would not have taken the fish home. So what?

You think it is a bad thing to take down a poster somone places in a public place. However, no one has the right to post anything they want in/on public property. Removal of such a poster is perfectly legal and moral. The message is irrelevant.

Oh, and you are obviously just a blow-hard. Won't even read an article that is at the heart of a discussion that you so want to go your way? Nice way to figuratively stick your head in the sand.

How about the Constitution - have you read that in this century?

Hello; You are on the record about taking the betta fish.

The message is relevant in that it was opposition to the message which was the reason the cut woman tore it down to start with. That was the "why" she tore it down. However to me the message itself is irrelevant, only that it was personal property.

I commented on the part of the story that mattered to me. Figured I had made that clear enough with the comment about the kid ripping up a flag from a yard. The one woman should not have damaged personal property. The other woman should not set a trap.

By the way the bit I made bold above is not my imagination is it?

 

[sk47]

Sure, modify the scenario to fit your argument. Take a mind reader to figure out what you are talking about if the scenario in your head is different than reality.

Hello; Thanks again. This exchange with you guys will likely be enlightening to many following the thread.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; You are on the record about taking the betta fish.

The message is relevant in that it was opposition to the message which was the reason the cut woman tore it down to start with. That was the "why" she tore it down. However to me the message itself is irrelevant, only that it was personal property.

I commented on the part of the story that mattered to me. Figured I had made that clear enough with the comment about the kid ripping up a flag from a yard. The one woman should not have damaged personal property. The other woman should not set a trap.

By the way the bit I made bold above is not my imagination is it?

It stopped being personal property when it was placed in public. Again, as usual, your argument has a flawed base assumption. I would agree with you if what you are saying is correct - that other's personal property should not be molested. Problem is, the poster was no longer anyone's personal property. The message does not matter and the motivation of the person removing such a sign is as irrelevant as the content.

Not your imagination - you seem like a blow-hard to me.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Thanks again. This exchange with you guys will likely be enlightening to many following the thread.

Indeed. You keep shouting "Get Off My Lawn" yet you have no lawn.

 

[Caballus]

Hello; I agree with the second paragraph for sure. The first gets too deep into the weeds. Lets take the notion of a public place out of it for a moment. That is what I did when I first thought about it. I only considered the poster as personal property. Not if it was illegally posted.
In that vein the cut woman intended to put up her own poster and that is conveniently dismissed by some. Not sure about every where buy intent matters lots of places.

OK, try this. Look at my initial comments using a bulletin board place set up for anyone to post on. That was closer to the way I looked at it. Never considered the part about posting in the specific place. If the posting place was illegal is all you can come up with, then a weak argument.

Also the cut woman had a poster with her to put up as I have mentioned a few times. So in one way the two women cancel each other out in terms of illegal posting. Both were were to post in the same place.

As pointless as this dust up is in one way, it does shed light on the way various parties have a world view.

Seems that taking out the first paragraph completely changes the discussion, as it is the essence of the issue. If the sign were in someone's yard, the circumstance would be totally different. Someone posted a bill on public property with the intention of cutting with a razor blade anyone who tried to remove it, regardless to who that person may be and what their motive may be. No one deserves to be cut by a razor blade (manned or unmanned) for attempting to remove a poster. That's an American view, albeit a single one, at least one from someone who has dealt with countless boobytraps.

 

[CJJon]

This thread needs a title change. Science isn't cancelled, logical reasoning is.

This thread is painful evidence of it.

 

[CJJon]

Do me now.

I've gone out of my way to say the content mattered not.

Still waiting.

 

[CJJon]

I just want to know:

Sponsored