just nod and im sure he will move on to bore us with something else.

great minds think like me. well done sketts.

Is that what they told you in Truth Zone Forum, to go buy your own lawnmower?....sad

batou wrote:

taken from ickes terms and conditions www.davidicke.com/terms-and-conditions/

My moral objection to ickes site is that at the time I left it was my feeling that they were not living up to their own promise. Legally ofc I do not have any recourse to enforcing the upholding of the rules but morally? I believe that if a website promises to do something for those who use it (and lets not forget that the icke site and its members have a symbiotic relationship with each other) then they are morally responsible for ensuring they indeed keep that promise.

The icke forum had no need to offer such a promise and had they not then perhaps morally I would not have a point either - however they did and I feel (obviously) that I do.

to add to my answer I will also say that I read your thread you started on tz about vambo and the treatment he received and your opinion on it. I have to say that I sympathise with, and recognise what you were attempting to point out within it. Which is why in part I am bemused at your answers to me here.

You cite the terms and conditions in an extremely selective manner. If you read the REMAINDER of the terms and conditions, they state unequivocally that your ability to use the website in any way shape or form can be immediately and uniliterally terminated at any time, for any reason, at the owner's discretion.

Notice that the terms: "harassment," "enjoyment" and so on are interpreted by the owner of the website, not by the user.

Notice that even if they DON'T enforce the terms and conditions in some cases, this does not forfeit their right to use it in others cases.

To put it very simply, the owners of the website can do whatever the heck they please.

The fact that you did not read, or ignored vast tracts of the terms and conditions is not their fault, it's yours.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing we shall be entitled to remove or reject any User Content and remove or suspend your ability to make or access, upload, submit, transmit, post or otherwise place User Content on or through DavidIcke.com for any reason.

You agree and undertake that you will not upload, submit, transmit, post or otherwise place User Content nor make any communication or post to or transmit to DavidIcke.com any statement or material, nor use DavidIcke.com in any way, that:

• is abusive, pornographic, defamatory, discriminatory or obscene;

• harasses any person;

• markets or promotes any third party without written permission from the moderators;

• interferes with another user’s use and enjoyment of DavidIcke.com;

• refers to any material that is inappropriate;

Users who repeatedly post inflammatory topics or contravene the sites posting guidelines will find their posts removed and eventually their user account removed. We reserve the right to remove posting privileges from any account at any time. In general the staff will endeavour to issue warnings before a user account is removed or suspended, however, in the instance of severe transgressions, this action may be taken without any prior warning.

TERMINATION
Without limiting to any other rights we may have, we may remove, restrict, cancel or suspend access to and use of all sites and Content and any part of it, if it considers (in its sole discretion) that you have breached of any of these Terms. Termination shall be without prejudice to our accrued rights.

GENERAL
Except as provided above there are no other warranties, conditions or other terms, express or implied, statutory or otherwise, and all such terms are hereby excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law (but subject to your statutory and common law consumer rights).
We act as principal on our own account and not as agent for you or any other person.

If we do not enforce any provision of this agreement such will not be considered a waiver of any provision or right.

In the event that any part of these terms and conditions is held to be unenforceable, such part will at our option be construed as far as possible to reflect the parties’ intentions and the remainder of the provisions will remain in full force and effect."


thoreau wrote:

I quoted the parts relevant to the point I was making in regard to what was promised.

We have already agreed that legally users have no standing and that ultimately owners can do as they wish.

I believed that having agreed on those two points we were moving on to discuss the assertion from yourself that I had no moral standpoint.

I was under the delusion that I, or vambo, or anyone else had an equal right and say about how truth zone is used. I don't. I accept that fact now. I didn't when I started that thread. That's why I state now that the owner of TZ (diamondgeezer) can do whatever he wants with his website. Same holds true for Sanctum Zone. Same holds true for (gasp) David Icke and HIS forum.
thoreau wrote:

Because you wanted to ignore those parts that are also relevant. The terms and conditions clearly state that the owners of davidicke.com and the david icke forum can do whatever they want with and in their website. That's true with any website (within the law). The terms and conditions refer to ALL of the terms and conditions, not just the parts that YOU find relevant.

David Icke and his forum team have a moral obligation to give you a full picture of how their website and forum are run. The fact that you have chosen to ignore 95% of the terms and conditions is YOUR fault, not theirs.
thoreau wrote:

Oddly enough I believe that morally you had a very valid point. If a website espouses that it allows free speech within certain parameters such as those that do not lead them open to accusations of libel or incitement etc then morally they should stand by that no matter how much individual members may disagree with what someone is saying.

That does not mean however that people can say what they like and expect not to have their views challenged merely that they should be free to give their view.

.

That's what not davidicke.com or his forum promise. Their promise is outlined in their FULL terms and conditions, not the small excerpt from it that you posted.

Their FULL terms and conditions state, with a minimum of legal-ese, that they can do whatever the f--- they want, as long as they don't violate the law. They made a promise to you, the user, that they would let you use it as long as they wanted to let you use it, and they certainly fulfilled their promise.

They can and should stand by their terms and conditions, which state explicitly that they can bar you from access or remove your posts, at any time for any reason, at their discretion.

They made you a promise and thy fulfilled it.

Now, you are retroactively ignoring 95% of their terms and conditions (ie their promise) to try to make them look like liars, which they are not.
thoreau wrote:

cowboy wrote:
What they can do is one thing what they say they WILL do is another. It would be like me saying I will decide to bake you a cake for your birthday but I reserve the right to change my mind whenever I want. It begs the question why state you will do something in the first place?

It would be far more honest to just say sign up to the forum we might ban you with or without any reason but hey its our website we can do as we please. I would actually respect that a lot more.

I am afraid I am moralising again but that despite some confusion due to my wording has been my stance since the beginning.

Their terms and conditions clearly state that they can remove any user, at any time, for any reason.

"we shall be entitled to remove or reject any User Content and remove or suspend your ability to make or access, upload, submit, transmit, post or otherwise place User Content on or through DavidIcke.com for any reason."

As I have said several times now, you have no right to use the davidicke.com site or it's forum unless they allow you to, and only on THEIR terms. And their terms clearly state that you and your posts can be removed FOR ANY REASON. Read it again. FOR ANY REASON. AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION.

You can ignore this point all you want. And you probably will. But you were told under the terms and conditions that they can deny you membership, ban your membership, or remove your posts FOR ANY REASON. They told you that WHEN YOU SIGNED UP. You are either in denial of this fact, or ignored it. But they NEVER lied to you.
thoreau wrote:

You seem to be fixating on the banning of accounts or removal of my posts part. What I quoted was about the removal of certain sorts of posts made by others such as racist or homophobic postings. Which imho they did not live up to. I suppose that you will say that that is also covered in the 'ultimately we will do what we want' clause. The question is, is that a morally dubious clause to put in in the first place. I believe it is.

Why say you will remove racist and homophobic posts and then also say 'well maybe we won't' what possible justification is there for not removing racist and homophobic posts?

thoreau wrote:

Because racism and homophobia = drama and drama = traffic and traffic = $$$ and $$$ = the reason for the DIF in the first place. But it's clear that the way the DIF is run is in complete and utter contradiction to David Icke's "message". People know this now. They can't keep from seeing it play out more and more each day. Those that deny it will do so til the bitter end. Let them.

Cowboy - You sound more like a Rothschild than a peace warrior, stop getting so excited - people will say what they like!
... I dont know who you are but you're very boring and I hope youre not in charge after the revolution.

thoreau wrote:
And please, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the introduction of ads on the DIF seem to coincide with a certain period of unrest on said forum? Say, when certain racist, hateful posts and an overall atmosphere of unchecked aggression was seemingly allowed to flourish?? Interesting, wouldn't you say?

I would also like to add something to the equal say part of one of cowboys previous posts.

I firmly believe that I do have an equal say in the running of sz. Whilst not a member of Tz I also believe that people have a say in how that forum is run though moderation is handled slightly differently (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) I also believe that the two forums have more in common than they do at odds with each other. There are great people in both forums.

Having your say and getting your way however are two very different things.

One thing I think both forums have had to come to terms with since starting out with very high ideals and expectations of their members is that no matter how well behaved, respectful and welcoming the majority are there will always be some people who solely wish to stir the pot or be contrary.

Free speech is about protecting our rights to say (almost) anything we want. It is not about protecting people from criticism, ridicule or societal repercussions that are the result of things people say.


I welcome your perspective, I disagree that I have no moral standpoint in my viewpoint and will argue my viewpoint vociferously within the prescribed boundaries of this forums rules. That you should be able to do the same is something that I think should be upheld whether we agree or not.

I thank you for the discussion so far and bid you goodnight. I am le tired

Cowboy, I/we are convinced and I/we will drop all planned legal actions against DI & sean regarding accessing DIF that may have been pending.

Your work is done.

Now your thoughts on TPV?