I’d like to file a protest that the information on Hendrix’s murder is being pre-emptively discriminated against by the moderator. In a post where aceplace57 clearly alluded that Hendrix’s death was associated with his alleged drug use and therefore shortened career, making him ineligible for a stamp, my correctly contexting it in relation to his murder was cited by a moderator as “hijacking the thread” and pre-emptively restricted at threat of warning.
Meanwhile, if you go to the thread, open discussion of the cause of death was allowed without any such protest and participated in by that same moderator. In other words the context of the original post was acknowledged and responded to as intended. It was only when mention of the murder context was similarly mentioned that it then became "hijacking". Posters were free to enter official story information and even a Wikipedia link on Hendrix's death. I was banned by Wikipedia because I tried to tell them their claim that Jimi's blood alcohol level was 100mg/100ml was provably incorrect from credible sources by Wikipedia's own rules. When I pointed out that Wikipedia was violating its own rules I suddenly found myself banned by a super-moderator who swooped in and accused me of posing a threat to Wikipedia. Meanwhile the inaccurate information remains on the page giving an inaccurate impression. Jimi's blood alcohol level on his autopsy sheet was written in stone as 5mg/100ml.
My protest is that negative hijacking is also possible and that correct and necessary discussion can be just as easily "hijacked" by being incorrectly disallowed by pre-emptive bias. After all, if a person is murdered doesn't that fairly have something to do with the brevity of their career? Apparently discussion of the manner of Jimi's death is allowed for some but not for others. This is not a judgment call either for any objective scrutiny of the subject will show the opposition to not be credible, as was proven with Wikipedia.
Go to the thread. Jimi is accused of heroin use and the official story is linked without question. He's even referred to as a drug addict. Discussion of the manner of Jimi's death is openly accepted up until the mention of his murder.
Either way, seems pretty clear that if you want to talk about any conspiracy related to Hendrix, you should just open up a new thread about it, and not hijack the one you were in, which was about a different topic.
Additionally, have you EVER posted about a different topic on this board? Get a new schtick.
The OP did mention Hendrix’s drug use and his death as a black mark on his character, but the thread is mostly about the postage stamp and an argument about your murder theory would’ve inevitably hijacked the thread.
Munch didn’t answer the point. I wasn’t discussing the murder. If you view my post it was 97% discussion of the stamp. It was only the single line mentioning Hendrix’s murder that was isolated by moderator and warned. If you read my post here I wasn’t doing anything the others weren’t doing.
Munch isn't being accurate. The manner of death was clearly part of the context of the original post to which many answered, including the moderator, without any content discrimination.
We already had a thread about Hendrix's murder. It was locked.
So what’s the problem? If you believe that 97% of your post was just about the stamp, and the other 3% was about your conspiracy theory - then just stick to the 97%. But you’re not really willing to do that, are you? Because that’s why you’re here complaining about the 3% being moderated.
But you are arbitrarily labeling correct discussion of the very context you also answered to and participated in "hijacking". So when you and others respond with provably incorrect information that acknowledges that OP's context it's OK. It's only when I point out the truthful information about Jimi's murder that it then becomes hijacking. I'm sorry but I don't feel the moderator is giving full address to the argument I'm making (which only illustrates the discrimination I'm talking about). The thread is clearly about the context of Jimi's eligibility to be on a stamp vis a vis his early death from drug use to which the moderator responded. The total context of the thread is inclusive and whether or not mention of the murder would spur a direction away from the stamp is irrelevant since the murder itself is clearly on-topic according to the context the moderator himself responded to. If it drew the thread off-topic that could easily be handled by specific moderation without an excluding edict that serves to ban on-topic discussion of context. With due respect, a branch discussing the forum should only have credibility if the site users have objective rights.
It kind of looks like you had your run at the topic, quite an extended one, and got nowhere. If a CT is so fringe that there’s not a mention of it in standard references, even Wikipedia, there’s likely to be a limit to how long making arguments for it will be tolerated… anywhere.
This one is so fringe that I’ve never heard of it… and believe me, that’s saying something. Whether it was accidental or suicide… now there’s a point worth debating. But murder? I think you need to move on.
With all respect, I agree that believing that Hendrix was murdered falls into the same category as other fringe conspiracies, such as believing that the moon landings were hoaxes or that 9/11 was a false-flag operation by the U.S. Government. Most people (myself included) accept that Hendix’s death was accidental. The only hijacking in that case would be by someone holding forth the argument that he was murdered and the overwhelming number of people who would rebut that theory.
That's a totally subjective opinion. I'm not sure there's any site rules that can be cited for that. Besides there's no "Other" about it. Others, including yourself, entered information that discussed Jimi's death in the context of the official drug OD story. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to allow incorrect discussion of Jimi's death while arbitrarily disallowing correct discussion of his death in on-topic context. In effect you've disallowed already-allowed discussion by means of an extraneous reason that unfairly denies on-topic discussion you've already participated in and therefore validated. The message is false information is OK but truthful information isn't as long as it is labeled disruptive or in violation of some very vague, broad rule. The long end of the barn is obviously being preferred here against the simple matter of Jimi's murder, which, in my opinion, deserves discussion.
Also, if a subject inspires pages and pages of discussion isn't that what a message board is for? Haven't the users decided that was a topic they desired to discuss by doing so? Is the moderator's job making the site in his own image or being an objective referee for the site's rules and purpose? What is so inherently bad about pages and pages anyway? (Besides the lack of credibility of the opposition becoming too apparent) Libraries are generally known to appreciate from volume and content. On the other hand, less democratic societies also gain from restriction of content. I find it difficult to accept strict site rules on one hand and subjective feeling on the other. This is a factual matter, in my opinion, the value of the discussion of which is not in question for any venue pretending to respect free speech and open democratic debate.
I also see Straight Dope is associated with the Chicago Sun newspaper. Unfortunately, the Hendrix murder subject has suffered as far as open airing from that sector as well. What are we really taking about here gentlemen? Can exposure of Jimi's murder while official media continues to promote an incorrect drug death ever be considered "unneeded"? I think an inappropriate dumbing-down of the subject is occurring here at the excuse of moderation.
This is the real hijacking that is going on here to the direct detriment of site credibility. The matter can only be discussed by its facts that are currently being discriminated against in my opinion.
My suggestion would be to come back when you have some - better and more supportable ones than you had in the 500+ post thread of a couple years back. Until then, there’s no more moral failing here than there would be in shutting down a birther, moon landing hoax or white supremacy thread with no supportable facts in it.
I’m somewhat familiar with the rules here. The mods - and in this case that means me - are empowered to intervene in threads to keep them on track. That’s one of the things a moderator does. It’s kind of right there in the definition. We need to do so once in a while because sometimes people hijack discussions. The most common method is to make an unusual or very provocative statement that’s somewhat related to the subject at hand but not really on topic. This isn’t the end of the world, but it’s also rude and if it’s not kept in check it’s unfair to the people who want to discuss the original topic. I’m usually more gentle in trying to head off these kinds of things, but in this case I felt I had to make myself very clear.
But not in a thread about a postage stamp.
Yes. But that doesn’t mean you can stroll into a discussion and take it over. Our primary rule here is “don’t be a jerk,” and that’s the kind of thing jerks do.
This isn’t a library, it’s a forum for discussion. Picture it as a conversation. Do you do this kind of thing when you enter a conversation? I’m guessing not, but if you do, you should know that most people find that kind of behavior to be rude and unpleasant. And “I’m telling the truth and you’re suppressing free speech” is not really on point because that’s not the issue.
But you just said that your participation was “97% discussion of the stamp”. But now the matter must involve the “facts” that are being discriminated against, which said were the 3%. Which is it? Your claim seems extremely disingenuous.
Perhaps you are laboring under the misapprehension that the Chicago Sun-Times is related to The Times of the UK and has a similar gossip rag tilt. Though it was once owned by News Corp we have never had Page 3 Girls or (too many) celebrity murder conspiracies (and the celebs are usually local) greeting our morning commuters. There are far too many sports teams in Chicago to leave room for crap like that.
Dude. Everybody knows that Jimi Hendrix’s whole career was faked by Stanley Kubrick on a NASA soundstage. Woodstock? Never happened; you can tell by the angle of the shadows.
Is this a conspiracy theory too? The Times of London may be owned by News UK, but it’s the equivalent of the New York Times. It was never a gossip rag. You’re maybe thinking of the Sun, which does have page three girls and is also owned by News UK.