Nick wrote:But inherent in what you are saying is the belief that everyone agrees with you, your way is everyone’s way. There is merit, I believe, in having a personal moral code that I try to live by and use to measure my behaviour towards others. However I do not believe that gives me the right to impose that code on another, or in some way decide another is less than myself because of their failing to adhere to my code. If my code is to have any real meaning, then it has to be tested, to test it, it has to be applied in less than easy, comfy situations. Part of the code I apply to this forum, is the concept of no censorship. If I was only to apply that to things I agreed with, then it would be a worthless position to take.
There are at least two possible reasons for "our previous response seems nonsensical". One is its a nonsensical position, the other is you fail to understand it. One, neither, or both of the two previous statements may be true.
I don't think I am suggesting that everyone agrees with me or that my way is the right way. I respect everyone can have their own personal moral code. So assuming that every member here has their own personal moral code and those codes may be individually variable, it seems remarkable that regardless of that variety, there Is a generally overriding commonality between members on how they conduct themselves towards one another, and it is that commonality which is the equilibrium I refer to which I and I believe Shane and others have historically enjoyed before it was disrupted. So, using the previous reference, it would seem it is ok for a long absent member to return, walk through the door and piss on your carpet, splattering everyones feet provided there Is something in that piss considered worthwhile. Interestingly, if you pissed on the protagonists carpet, regardless of piss content value, the response would be different. You dribbled a bit just the other day only to be accused of making insults.
As for censorship, I understand your position on this. I have no expectation of you becoming a censor. It seems to me that for the tranquility of nirvana to prevail, everyone's conduct must be acceptable to all. One disruption is likely to disrupt many and there is nowt to be done but put up with it, accept it or walk away. That seems a bit disproportionate when it is only one or two causing the disruption to many.
