Censorship

I do know that a lot of times a person will flag their own article or the "community" will flag. It is not necessarily censorship, but to let others know right away when they open the article that if a person is easily offended, they might not want to read it.

Ah yes - the flagging system here on Gather is great! I love that tool. Thanks for reminding me and others that it is always available.

There are many times that I've read an article or looked at a picture and wondered why it was flagged or given such a low rating. I think that part of it is that there are prudes here who are easily offended. The other part is that there are some who wish to control Gather. These control people are the most offensive. I wish they would take it easy on everyone and themselves. It doesn't have to be a negative experience to learn something about someone that isn't liked. Sometimes, it gives needed information that is helpful to the group.

play it by ear it will work out

I don't think I have been ambivalent anywhere, Bongo. If I have I apologize. My position is that there isn't a need to control the content of others. If that is different from something else I've said - I am not aware of it.

Well said.

At least Bongo admits when he makes a mistake instead of just deleting his comment and leaving us all to wonder what happened.
I also advocate free speech.

Bongo and Joe - good example of how people can make mistakes about others and move on. If you are unsure about tsomething ask and let the person have a chance to clarify.

THanks for the comments. I just HATE when people try to control what other people can say or even more what they can feel.

Notice, Lisa, that the only thing I have to say, here, concerning what you, or anyone, personally feel, about the actual content of the censored material, below, is that it's not supposed to make any difference, here. Notice, also, however, the policy of Internet Movie Data Base! It Was even worse, with Amazon Books.com, and just as disgracefully typical; even as elaborated upon in the first deleted, bigotedly, cynically censored comment, below! Then, ask yourself . . . !--And perhaps consider submitting a few complaints of your own, to complement mine.

From: Richard O'Donnell
Topic: User comments help desk
URL:
Subject: Getting Straight
________________________________________
A second comment has just been deleted by you, based, again, this time, too, upon what you cite to be an abuse report, filed by another user. When I inquired, in the first instance, as to what you meant, you simply referred me to the submission guidelines. Yet, when I surveyed them, the only coherently applicable statement I could find was the one which specified that you simply had unconditional discretion in such matters, and for which you obligate yourselves to provide no explanation at all, if you so choose.

How can a comment even be edited, then re-submitted, as you also recommend, minus any kind of indication as to what is supposed to have been deemed objectionable, let-alone why? If the only principle one has to guide him, in his attempt to answer such a question, really only amounts to the fact that another simply doesn't like what was said; that would hardly seem to embody any meaningfully intelligible principle at all, other than of a kind which is far-too-unprincipled to be considered legitimate.

This is really the only public forum I've ever had, just as I have already written, in the past, to express my gratitude. I've also tried to make my comments no less seriously responsible than meaningfully and relevantly substantial. If another user considers that to constitute abuse, then I must, in all clearly defensible conscience, register my own opinion to the effect that, in the cases being referred to here, the only detectable abuse committed involves an irresponsibly abusive utilization of the very term--abuse.

Where the latest deletion, here, is concerned, you may note that the comment had already received one positive vote, before the "abuse" report was filed.
Doesn't that vote count for anything?--Or, is everybody who might be potentially capable of appreciating the appearance of such a comment, to be undemocratically, unconscionably denied the privilege, simply based on what somebody else just plain dictatorially, arbitrarily, whimsically feels? Under these conditions, I feel it impossible for me to contribute any more comments.

Richard O'Donnell

P.S. If you feel this communication to be so candidly "offensive" that even what yet remains posted shall no longer be regarded as welcome, please inform me to precisely this effect, and at least allow me the symbolically personal dignity of deleting every one of them myself.

Deleted Comments
This is a list of the comments that you've either deleted yourself, or have been deleted by us (since 2004). This does not include comments which were rejected without ever being published on the site. All comments must comply with the guidelines and the listing here is not an invitation for you to repost a deleted comment again. Please consider why any comments may have been deleted by IMDb and modify them accordingly if you wish to resubmit them to the site.
Please note in some cases, owing system glitches, comments can be accidentally published two or more times. When these duplicates are deleted, they will still show up here so not all comments listed below necessarily break the guidelines. Please check to see whether another copy of the same comment is still live.

2 comments in total

Getting Straight (1970)
It Doesn't Work!, 11 January 2007

(This comment was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

We had our ideals as well, until a most institutionally, unassailably beastial atmosphere of corruption had so gladly helped to harden them into an angst which eventually left barely anything more in my own leading lady than still another version of Kim Stanley, at the end of Paddy Chayefsky's The Goddess, right next to my own real-life version of Steven Hill. There had also been an intervening version of Lloyd Bridges, to help complete the analogy of that particular script; but minus any part of her left behind for me to cherish, which made it more like something out of Jane Eyre. The major difference, from Jane Eyre, was that mine had arrived more at the beginning, but with nobody to replace her at the very end. . . . Or, on second consideration, to speak quite forgetfully (I could only wish!), there had been someone; in fact, who had been waiting, right there at the coffin! It required me an incredibly lengthy three years to decide I'd finally had enough, although she'd demanded an additional six, to the almost terminal detriment of my soul! I'm referring to Mercedes McCambridge, from right out of The Exorcist; or, to speak most synonymously, she followed my Angel Baby, in a reversal of that original script. A strong dose of Norman Mailer's An American Dream must not be overlooked, either; just as the one "replaced" had derived scarcely any emotional consolation that we'd both known my real-life Dominique Francon, from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, turned out not to have been fit even to lick her feet. About all that's left of me, by now, is Henry Hull; although he, especially, would have gone out chanting, despite his terminal disillusionment, that such is an incalculably far cry better than the typical dislikes of Kent Smith! . . . We were both Liberal Arts majors, and that served to provide an overwhelmingly incredible array of strictly academic amusements; which occasionally resulted in the most rudely appropriate outbursts of uncontrollable laughter, right in the middle of the lectures. More specifically, it was a very culturally well-endowed exchange student, Inga, from Russia, whose temperament precluded any seriously self-brutalizing attempts to suppress this kind of flamboyance. Those lectures might have been somewhat useful, had their mouthpieces been the least bit intellectually let-alone morally or artistically qualified to do justice to their subjects. Even now, over twenty years later, I still wince, while reminiscing on the mechanically sterile tones alone, abrasively assaulting my most conscientiously vulnerable sensibilities. I wish there were space enough here to catalogue the long list of imbecilic one-liners alone which accompanied their coldly-petrifying glances, along with so much endlessly malicious gossip which totally destroyed my ability to function!. . . . But she died, twelve years later, as agonizingly nondescript as I, never having succumbed to their numerous attempts even to bribe her away from me, with promises of the most professionally lifelong security, but only in exchange for her willingness, in return, to do--anything! It's unfortunate I'd neglected to study just enough chemistry to have paid some of them a visit, in the form of Buddy Love; especially for the purpose of viewing such a moving performance of Shakespeare, from Dr. Warfield himself!--Or, in the case of Getting Straight, from the likes of Leonard Stone--instead! My favorite scene, however, shall always be of a flashback, likewise performed by The Master, Jerry Lewis, along with Ina Balin, from The Patsy, which most find just as murderously laughable as all the other typically-insufferable non-entities in that scene. I'm only sorry my alma mater hadn't also been Carrie's, for I wouldn't have wanted to miss that particular prom, even in high school; although nobody else there would have been fit even for Eddie Murphy to escort, rather than the likes of Spencer Tracy himself! As much as Ingrid Bergman puts most of them to shame, even she needed his help, too; despite how costly it turned out to be, almost beyond even the extent of that for which she had so very "inadvertently" bargained!

Damien: Omen II (1978)
Another Thought-Provoking Springboard to the True Configuration!, 19 November 2006

(This comment was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

Although this account is also a sequel to the one I'd begun (with a most relevant cross-referencing of Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?) in commenting on The Omen, I am trying to keep it as briefly albeit indispensably and crucially cogent as possible, as a means of structurally outlining the wider pattern within which Mr. Hanchett's fits, as well as the corresponding actual meaning of his. Because America has betrayed its Divine Mandate, God has structured the scripturally prophetic patterning to where the current president can indeed be plausibly argued to be the Final Antichrist!--In accordance with a scheme wherein the first six seals open only once, followed by the "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and the "Holy Roman Empire," and then the "Setting loose of Satan for a little while" (Revelation 20:7-8), in the form of the Protestant Reformation. America, as Mr. Hanchett brilliantly elaborates upon in the most unaccidentally compelling detail of his own, has become an Image of the beast! And, indeed, what more cleverly self-disguising manner for the actual antichrist to re-emerge, than in the form of the one who replaces or gets rid of the antichrist, just as Hitler had been similarly deposed! Intriguingly enough, even the previous Pope, just before his death, had reportedly been entertaining thoughts that Bush could be the Antichrist!!!--While, to be sure, Iraq (along with how many historically Roman Crusades, for that matter) hardly satisfies the Classically Roman definition of a "Just War." In Mr. Hanchett's scheme, the Roman Deception is perfectly accommodated, as the interval between the wounding of the fourth beast (explicitly pagan Rome), and the healing of this fatal head wound! . . . Of course, Mr. Hanchett counts Rome as the sixth head, based on the manner in which he calculates. However, a clue to his limitation, in this sense, is provided in Daniel 7:6. Not unrelatedly, the Holy Roman Empire, contrary to Mr. Hanchett, is not "one" of the ten horns on the Eighth Beast, but rather embodies them all; just as, for that matter, there is more than one way of accurately configuring many of these symbols, including, in the instance of the ten horns, those which serve to symbolize the ten major persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian. Moreover, as for Revelation 17:10? Mr. Hanchett's very popular interpretation, like unto the one which falsely identifies the Lord's ministry as the sixty-ninth week, is not the only possible one; any more than that, at least for Mr. Hanchett's purposes, it is even at all optimally desirable, let-alone necessary; as an alternative, that is (and notwithstanding all the structurally pivotal "loose ends" which are much more "accidentally overlooked" in Mr. Hanchett's historically prophetic paradigm), to calling explicitly pagan Rome the seventh head, and America, the "Eighth Beast!" Yet, like unto all such possible interpretations (Isaiah 28:7-13), it does have a Divinely-intended usefulness. And, finally, here, at least for now: Situating the seventh seal, within Mr. Hanchett's scheme, is quite an intriguing puzzle all its own. We find it fitting most "perfectly" into place after the wounding of Mr. Hanchett's sixth head, as well as contiguously with the beginning end of the thousand years, or "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and extending, after that, no less contiguously with the unfolding of Mr. Hanchett's resurrected or seventh head. . . . Moreover, in this scheme, the recently popularized application of Revelation 8:10-11, involving "Wormwood," or Chernobyl, appears to be, in retrospect, quite chronologically, harrowingly well-timed!-Indeed, so much so, in addition to just about everything else already covered here, that one can only wonder whether Rome is still deliberately concealing, until the "proper moment," this much less "poetic" or "allegorical" version of John's "vision" or "dream," or whether even it has yet to receive this particular "revelation!" At any rate, an objectively real and physically invisible spirit being called the Devil quite consciously understands, or essentially and no less "cleverly" believes he does, exactly what he is doing! In this connection, even the historical evidence suggests that the popular "Rapture Theory" had been deliberately set-up, in advance--for an extremely useful--fall!--Save for a single, hitherto doctrinally and tragically misunderstood "snag" (Revelation 12:12-17), involving only 144,000 people (Revelation 3:7-13); while most, who vainly, presumptuously expect to be "Raptured," are, again, identified in Revelation 12:17, as well as Revelation 3:14-22; 6:9-11; 20:4, and many other places. Moreover, take one guess, if you dare, concerning which country to which the next to last application of Revelation 18, falsely posing as the very last, is quite imminently, by now, slated to apply!-Immediately followed by the final Satanic counterfeit of Daniel's Seventieth Week!-Including such parallel occurrences as that between, say, Matthew 27:51 and Daniel 9:27, or between Matthew 21:12-13 and Revelation 17:16-18! . . . Moreover, If we count, from 554 A.D., we arrive, one-thousand years later, at the point where the spiritual exodus, from Babylon, in the form of the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, begins! Therefore, take, say, 1517 A.D. as an approximate benchmark date (Matthew 24:36-51), and count 483 or 490 years ahead on this "mirror image!" Where does that take you? Moreover, count, from Christmas Day, 800 A.D., when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as "Holy Roman Emperor," to, again, 1517 A.D., so that all one need do is add another zero to the seventy years the Israelites had been in captivity at ancient Babylon. The next phase, now shortly as well as briefly-upcoming, shall rather necessitate the removal of both zeroes.
________________________________________
Please don't re-submit them without editing them first.
________________________________________

Also, Lisa, your opening words are totally identical with mine, if you will but search for them, in the critique, below; one of the many IMDb has left posted, at least thus far. Richard O'Donnell

Falling Down (1993)

Screaming "Fire" In a House That Is Perhaps Actually Burning!, 15 December 2006

Why do I like Mr. Foster so much, and even empathize with him so completely?--Albeit Purely Hypothetically! Is it really just because I must be no less crazy than he, as most would readily insist? Or, could it possibly be something much less typically simple (non-) minded than that, which is more popularly, normatively, thus alone unassailably reflected in what has happened, what we've all allowed to occur, to every one of us, and insist upon keeping that way? Perhaps it's the form, and not the content, of how he'd begun expressing himself? Well, then, maybe he should have just found a friend to talk to, or even a stranger on the street; one who would, no doubt, have sarcastically called him crazy, regardless of how calmly and sensibly he'd tried to share his feelings! In fact, far-too-many, if not most, instinctively interpret kindness as weakness and stupidity! About the only form of somebody's need to falsely or at least ignorantly but sincerely believe himself at all Christianly Compassionate, rather than much more predictably and viciously resentful, which he'd thereby have had even a small chance of encountering; would have undoubtedly assumed the conventionally and evasively falsifying expression of a suggestion that he see a psychiatrist, where the presupposition that he's the only one with the problem remains axiomatically supreme. At best, the psychiatrist might uncharacteristically concede, if he's sufficiently "one-upped," that, while society itself unwittingly suffers from its own pseudo-collective form of psychosis, there's nothing anybody can do to change that, thus leaving the only realistically sane alternative that of adjusting to it, while antiseptically neutralizing the very reason why society itself could and even should consider changing, one real individual at a time, if not all of them, at once! . . . His wife was certainly not available, just as the film itself at least appears to presuppose that no account as to how the brutally-insensitive hostility in her attitude had come about needs to be offered, since the answer to that is allegedly right before the horrified eyes of the audience, which smugly assumes the way he's expressing himself to be nothing but the cause, rather than perhaps at least as decisively an effect of the fact that no other form of approach had ever made any constructive difference. In fact, try saying "please," to the Devil, and his technique will often be to get your goat, so he can be the one to point the finger! The only thing which never self-vindicatingly comes into focus is the kind of man who just wants to see his daughter, or the kind of man whose reasons for feeling so dangerously perturbed should have been no less self-evidently and understandably revealing. Perhaps he should have made a movie about the problem, although it would have thereby been reduced to nothing but a form of contained and squared-away entertainment, infested with mere actors (as well as Circus Maximus spectators), who've learned nothing, but only want to be, as Nietzsche so cynically and accurately observed, well-paid, and "glorified," in full (Matthew 6:1-6). Or, what if he'd tried to share his thoughts on a web site such as this, about a similar kind of film; only to have received a long string of negative votes, and even complaints to the web site masters about how he's not sticking to an appropriately relevant or artistically non-controversial critique of the film; from many-too-many who are offended due to their unwillingness to handle any deeper, more meaningfully relevant kind of truth, and whose demands that the comments be deleted would thereafter be instantaneously honored? . . . I was going to say that such people are typically reflective of Hitler, in their spontaneously instinctive inclination to insist that anything they don't like be totally censored; particularly if their feeling is prevalent enough to where they know their demand would thereby alone be self-evidently vindicated, no questions asked, as well as very undemocratically minus any respect for perhaps even the many who would have appreciated a chance to read such comments. But, then, on second thought, perhaps even Hitler was also if not even primarily reacting, in spirit, to the very kind of people who would have unhesitatingly reacted, in precisely his way, to still others, who would have reacted, in exactly the same way, to them, had any one of them, from either category, simply had the chance Hitler did to do so, coupled with what Scarface called "the guts to be what you want to be," which alone most so very "virtuously," timidly, domesticatedly, albeit no less brutally, uncompromisingly, in attitude, lack. I have no doubt that most would want my head, or at least my comments bigotedly deleted, for what I'm about to say, in the more constructive way that they'd thus quite hypocritically suggested the Columbine boys should rather have expressed themselves! Nevertheless, what I do believe is that there is a great deal of truth to the assertion that Hitler had been at least as much a reaction to "Hitler" as anything else (he had himself called it "Fighting Terror with Terror!"), and that this is at least as much the reason he's been so hatefully, hysterically demonized, from beneath all the indispensably good arguments against him behind which they conveniently hide from themselves! Even Bible Believers incoherently forget that, when Paul and Peter speak of all the powers that be having been Divinely-Ordained, Hitler must thereby have been meant, too, at least for the duration of his tenure, and for a much better reason than that he had simply "come out of nowhere, " to disrupt an otherwise "Christianly Harmonious" situation! The biggest waste of all is that nobody's learned, even from Hitler! However, the next and last one will prove to be much more "antithetical" or "diplomatically palatable" than he had been, particularly in his most equally, morally unjustifiable folly!

ahhhh it all makes sense now... lol