I think this needs it's own article .... it doesn't really belong where I first put it since it isn't really about the subject of Net Neutrality. It's definitely not about neutrality of any kind at all.
So here's the deal:
One day as I was searching around the web, I landed on http://www.openinternet.gov/.
I took a look around and found myself on the Blog page. While I was checking it out, I came across a somewhat shocking statement by one of the commenters.
I couldn't be quiet about it so in one of my other identities (I'm the same person no matter 'who' I am, it's only the name that changes lol...) I commented on it. And then further down I again commented on another of the same poster's comments and referenced his previous comment.
Both of my comments disappeared.
So, I reposted one of them and it's still "awaiting moderation" so I don't know if it shows up in other people's browsers or not. I find it odd that my comments were removed, and one is still 'awaiting' moderation ... but all of Christopher's are still posted; and in my opinon not one of his opinions is valid or worth anything at all in light of his opinion on that one issue. +sadly shaking my head+
I tried to bring this up in a round about way in my other article (referenced above) without actually putting the text of what he said in my article. . . which is still what I hope not to have to do; but, I do have a screen capture of it just in case it's necessary.
Anyway, when you check out Christopher's comment (follow the link below), pay close attention to his first sentence and his views on that subject.
Check out the Blog:
So, while we will be on a site discussing Net Neutrality, this comment is on a different topic altogether, orrrr maybe not . . . check this guy out:
Calls himself Christopher - you won't believe the topic he talks about in his first sentence! You have to see it to believe it . . .
Here is the url just in case the link does not work:
http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=8#comment-558
Check out this definition of one of the words which describes the issue Christopher has no problem with.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
Maybe they weren't getting the right numbers of the right points of view?
Maybe they were investigating Christopher all this time ...?
Maybe the internet is just slow ...?
Maybe . . . maybe . . . mmm . . .
Maybe it's just my connection. .
Anyone who wants to go vote a five on S.K.'s comment here ---if it shows up in your browser that is --- I'd appreciate it. +sigh+
Or at least vote a '1' on Christopher's nastiness here. Mmm?
Who knows, maybe "Christopher" was one of the moderators and only his offensive comment is gone while he went on to post as someone else. Maybe he was a plant to try to lure someone like me in to prove we neeeeed regulations. No matter ... seems his comment and his horrid belief, is gone from sight and I am, for the moment, satisfied.
I can't believe his are still there - have we become sooo tolerant even his statements can stand without opposition? ... Do you see what I am referencing; the comment in his first sentence?
Do you think any of his comments ideas opinions or views are worth anything at all in light of his obvious lack of discernment and character irt this one issue? Are his comments or opinions on anything at all an appropriate addition here, on a Whitehouse approved site; and btw an official FCC page?
My answer is, I wouldn't allow him to clean a toilet for me ... much less give me advice on anything else at all.
Christopher says:
October 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Well, I happen to argue that that ‘unlawful’ content, by which I assume you are referring to child pornography, is okay and I really have no problem with it to be totally blunt or pedosexuality in general.