Cigar Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
Personally, I would just assume we leave the blog to the blogosphere.

But then I suppose that's just me... I have no interest in 500 people's self-professed wisdom, cross-blogging and intra-blog gossiping, or their attmepts to make money from their righteous indignation. That probably makes me a little closed minded toward certain posts, but for some reason I suddenly had the overwhelming conviction that my opinion needed to be made public on the internet.

Just my :2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Noting that there seems to be not the slightest interest from Gorillas that words specific to herfing are being erased.

The responses have all been ad hominem.

Are we slouching toward Calabasas?

Search CS for "Calabasas" to understand the reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and not an evil liberal plot to control the world. Chewing tobacco is in the thesaurus:
Main Entry: chewing tobacco
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: tobacco that is chewed
Synonyms: eating tobacco, oral tobacco, smokeless tobacco, snuff

Apparently liberals are down with dip. :BS

You'll also be glad to know that moonshine is a synonym for 10 words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
So... do you have something interesting to say about cigars, smoking or the cigar community?

Your posts seems mostly focused on hitting home that you believe that your viewpoints are supreme and that no other view point is acceptable to you. The expression "califascist" just underlines how highly you think of yourself and that you prefer insults and attention seeking words instead of a respectful discussion and exchange of views. I prefer not to engage in a discussion under those premises and i don't see a vast conspiracy (left or right wing) in wheter or not cigars are part of an online dictionary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I have no problem with PRIVATE companies (Yahoo, Ebay, PayPal) restricting what content they choose to allow. If the online thesaurus wants to remove all reference to tobacco, conservatism or religion it is their right to do so. What I do have a problem with is when GOVERNMENT decides how I should conduct my life and what is good for me. When Federal, State and local governments decide I cannot smoke a cigar while eating a BigMac while driving while driving my car without a seatbelt (or wearing a helmet for you motorcycle riders) then they have gone too far.

Back to your original post . . .if they do not want to include tobacco related products on their thesaurus they have that right . . . just as you have the right post (or not post) anything on your blog site.

:2
 

·
Acronym Wizard
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
Puro.Esq. said:
I have no problem with PRIVATE companies (Yahoo, Ebay, PayPal) restricting what content they choose to allow. If the online thesaurus wants to remove all reference to tobacco, conservatism or religion it is their right to do so.
Back to your original post . . .if they do not want to include tobacco related products on their thesaurus they have that right . . . just as you have the right post (or not post) anything on your blog site.
I agree.

And, moreover, who cares?

p.s. Anyone upset that some online thesaurus has the ability to block reference to cigars should be more upset that they just contradicted their belief, I presume, that one should be allowed to make reasonable use of their own property. (That was just to fan the fires : ) :po
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I just emailed thesaurus.com to note the omission.

AND I offered to write up an entry if they wanted one. I put my money and my time and efforts where my beliefs are and don't expect taxation and distribution by the California legislature to fairly allocate those resources as do my left-of-center Californians.

But I'll report on thesaurus.com's response to see if it's a sin of commission or a sin of omission.

Would I legally force them to add it? No. I'm more of a libertarian than a conservative. I have no problem with bringing outrageous policies to public notice and let the company feel the pressure and properly respond to the market.

Have any of the Californian herfers in the Bay Area written even once about the new laws in Calabasas? Or is it because they aren't personally affected that it doesn't matter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Aaron said:
I just emailed thesaurus.com to note the omission.

AND I offered to write up an entry if they wanted one. I put my money and my time and efforts where my beliefs are and don't expect taxation and distribution by the California legislature to fairly allocate those resources as do my left-of-center Californians.

But I'll report on thesaurus.com's response to see if it's a sin of commission or a sin of omission.

Would I legally force them to add it? No. I'm more of a libertarian than a conservative. I have no problem with bringing outrageous policies to public notice and let the company feel the pressure and properly respond to the market.

Have any of the Californian herfers in the Bay Area written even once about the new laws in Calabasas? Or is it because they aren't personally affected that it doesn't matter?
What are you 12?!?

You contacted a private company to let them know that they left out reference to cigars on their private website? Wait . . . what is that sound? Oh yeah I can hear them laughing at you.

Exactly how would you "force" them to add it? It is not like they are espousing blatant hate speech, racism, terrorist threats or something . . . for God's sake they don't reference cigars on their privately owned thesaurus. Why don't you call Rush Limbaugh and ask him why he does not allow "Hillary 08" advertisements on his show and website . . . after all he is censoring his site in blatant disregard for her Free Speech rights. Does your site have all view points? Just as you have absolutely no legal ground to force them to do anything, nobody has any legal ground to force you to change your private site.

I take offense at your "Califascist" comments. Not all of us Californians are Left-Wing liberals just as not all of us are Ultra-Right-Wing Bloggers.

Really when it comes down to it . . . WHO CARES WHAT AN ON-LINE THESAURUS HAS LISTED???

:sb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I tend to agree. You'd get more symphaty and engagement if you stopped insulting folks who live in california. Califascist is a childish and somewhat moronic term.

You aren't here looking for a debate or a different point of view. You are posting here to eschew a viewpoint which you hold so dear and morally superior that all other viewpoints and beliefs are being subjected to namecalling and ridicule. If you gave two cents about freedoms you'd adhere to the principle of defending freedoms. You would fight for people to have the right to disagree with you and not fight to have them "step in line and brainwashed into your version of the truth".

i personally object to the modern form of political debate which to me have stooped to such a low level that it's more about character assinations and labeling than about carrying a discussion about what should be done or what the problem is. The blogosphere is full of e-thugs who doesn't want to do anything but hear themselves and esphew their version of how everyone else must conform to their beliefs.

Sorry, this is not what i do. I prefer to exchange beliefs and ideas and respect an opposing view instead of trying to tear down their character.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
par said:
I tend to agree. You'd get more symphaty and engagement if you stopped insulting folks who live in california. Califascist is a childish and somewhat moronic term.

You aren't here looking for a debate or a different point of view. You are posting here to eschew a viewpoint which you hold so dear and morally superior that all other viewpoints and beliefs are being subjected to namecalling and ridicule. If you gave two cents about freedoms you'd adhere to the principle of defending freedoms. You would fight for people to have the right to disagree with you and not fight to have them "step in line and brainwashed into your version of the truth".

i personally object to the modern form of political debate which to me have stooped to such a low level that it's more about character assinations and labeling than about carrying a discussion about what should be done or what the problem is. The blogosphere is full of e-thugs who doesn't want to do anything but hear themselves and esphew their version of how everyone else must conform to their beliefs.

Sorry, this is not what i do. I prefer to exchange beliefs and ideas and respect an opposing view instead of trying to tear down their character.
:u BRAVO!
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top