# Should the thread on hot to bypass the China firewall have been closed??? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911 "2006-02-10T20:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/21 "2006-02-11T01:43:01Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > I wonder if you’d have this sentiment if a board based outside the US were teaching people how to circumvent US law. The Reader doesn’t have this policy because it thinks censorship is moral: it does it mainly to avoid lawsuits. Therefore it’s _official_ stance is that it discourages informing others how to break US law. I would understand completely if in another country, another board complied with the laws of that country, due to the legal reason of not wanting to be sued/shut down. I might not agree with it morally if it broke a US law I agree with, but I wouldn’t really care if a foreign website provided info on how to break a _bad_ US law. Same dealie with China. We shouldn’t kowtow to the oppressors: therefore, morally I feel as if the thread shouldn’t be locked. And the legal argument isn’t there in this case, as it is a foreign law. Incidentally, do you _really_ think China would get very far in trying to enforce censorship in the US? Pure patriotic gold issue, man, **GOLD**. Good publicity, too. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/22 "2006-02-11T01:50:43Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > I wonder if you’d have this sentiment if a board based outside the US were teaching people how to circumvent US law. If the US was to try its own national firewall, I’d be all for those boards. And I bet most people here would agree. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/23 "2006-02-11T02:20:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well, **samclem** maybe you should take a gander over at the posted rules which state: > > > [@](#): > > > > You agree not to post material that in our opinion fosters or promotes activity that is illegal in the U.S. > > Its clear that they care about, and only about, U.S. law. The thread in question does not violate US law, you were mistaken in closing it and it should be reopened. It’s clear that they oppose breaking US law. We agree on that. More than that you cannot infer. > [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Then the rules should explicity say so, IMO. Since they don’t, I say you’re full of shit. If they want to change the rules, that’s fine by me, but until they do I can’t agree with this action of yours. Fuck you. I don’t care what you _think_. There is NO RULE that says I can’t shut down a thread which I feel is not in the best interest of the Chicago Reader. And FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/24 "2006-02-11T02:31:25Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Fuck you. I don’t care what you _think_. There is NO RULE that says I can’t shut down a thread which I feel is not in the best interest of the Chicago Reader. And FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole. Well, I don’t care what _you_ think. You’re right, there isn’t a rule that says you can’t close any damn thread you want. Doesn’t mean you’re right when you do. There’s _also_ no rule that says I couldn’t post that link, so take your “FUCK YOU” and shove it up your ass. I’m just glad the OP got to the link before you did. Asshole. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/25 "2006-02-11T02:32:40Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Fuck you. I don’t care what you _think_. There is NO RULE that says I can’t shut down a thread which I feel is not in the best interest of the Chicago Reader. And FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole. I’m sure that an advertising-supported alternative weekly from the American midwest has a huge following in Beijing. I’m sure they really want to know what’s really the matter with Kansas and that next Tuesday there’s a musical about Gertrude Stein. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/26 "2006-02-11T02:46:40Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Fuck you. I don’t care what you _think_. There is NO RULE that says I can’t shut down a thread which I feel is not in the best interest of the Chicago Reader. And FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole. A while ago a member was suspended, and then that suspension was lifted, for being abusive towards a Moderator when that Moderator was performing official SDMB duties. In the long [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352292) that resulted, there was considerable discussion over the level of propriety expected of members when dealing with Moderators acting in their official capacity, and **TubaDiva** made the Board’s position quite clear when she said that “We insist that you treat the staff with basic civility and some decent manners.” In the subsequent discussion, it was determined that it is acceptable to be uncivil to a Mod when the Mod is posting as a regular member, but not when the Mod is carrying out his or her duties as a Mod. My impression was also that we, as members, could expect “basic civility and some decent manners” from Moderators acting in their official capacity; that they would be more circumspect when carrying out official duties than was necessary when posting as regular members. Given all that, i’m somewhat perplexed as to why you would say “fuck you” to someone, and call them an asshole, for disagreeing with a moderating decision. And i’m even more troubled that, by your own admission, you don’t even care what **Q.E.D.** thinks about this issue; it is possible, you know, to disagree with someone without dismissing their opinion of being of no importance. I guess what i would really like to know is whether the conclusions reached in the earlier thread are now considered ancient history, and both moderators’ and members’s gloves can come off altogether. If this thread is any indication, that certainly seems to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/27 "2006-02-11T03:02:44Z")
> [@QED](#): > > I’m just glad the OP got to the link before you did. Thanks **QED** for fighting the good fight and gettign through. **samclem** I would like to know if you would shut down a thread along the lines of what is the best way I can get off this island of Cuba and make it to the US? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/28 "2006-02-11T03:13:04Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > **samclem** I would like to know if you would shut down a thread along the lines of what is the best way I can get off this island of Cuba and make it to the US? Probably not. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/29 "2006-02-11T03:15:45Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > It’s clear that they oppose breaking US law. We agree on that. More than that you cannot infer. I’ll infer what I please. Is there a rule prohibiting threads about activities violating foriegn law written down anywhere? No. Has a rule prohibiting threads violating foriegn law ever been enforced? No. Does starting a thread about violating foriegn law break the “Don’t be a jerk rule”? No. You have absolutely no basis to claim that the thread in question violated any rule or policy of the SDMB. This is simply further evidence that you do not have a firm grasp of the SDMB rules and your response to Q.E.D. is yet another example of your lack the requisite tact to be a moderator. You simply can’t adequately perform the functions of a moderator and you should resign. If you won’t then you certainly should be fired. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/30 "2006-02-11T03:30:38Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > samclem I would like to know if you would shut down a thread along the lines of what is the best way I can get off this island of Cuba and make it to the US? > > > [@samclem](#): > > > > Probably not. And what, exactly, is the difference between helping **kanicbird** emigrate from Cuba to the US and helping **WindWalker** bypass China’s internet firewall? In fact, the first case may, in some cases, be illegal here depending on how one attempts to enter this country. It’s certainly risky; many people have died trying to leave Cuba and come to the US. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone has died from bypassing the Great Firewall of China–I suppose prison is a possibility. In both cases, people are being denied what most of us would consider basic human rights because of laws in their respective countries. So why close the one with all the associated vitriol you’ve shown here, but not the other? I think the question deserves an honest answer. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/31 "2006-02-11T03:31:31Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > A while ago a member was suspended, and then that suspension was lifted, for being abusive towards a Moderator when that Moderator was performing official SDMB duties. > > In the long [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352292) that resulted, there was considerable discussion over the level of propriety expected of members when dealing with Moderators acting in their official capacity, and **TubaDiva** made the Board’s position quite clear when she said that “We insist that you treat the staff with basic civility and some decent manners.” > > In the subsequent discussion, it was determined that it is acceptable to be uncivil to a Mod when the Mod is posting as a regular member, but not when the Mod is carrying out his or her duties as a Mod. > > My impression was also that we, as members, could expect “basic civility and some decent manners” from Moderators acting in their official capacity; that they would be more circumspect when carrying out official duties than was necessary when posting as regular members. > > Given all that, i’m somewhat perplexed as to why you would say “fuck you” to someone, and call them an asshole, for disagreeing with a moderating decision. And i’m even more troubled that, by your own admission, you don’t even care what **Q.E.D.** thinks about this issue; it is possible, you know, to disagree with someone without dismissing their opinion of being of no importance. > > I guess what i would really like to know is whether the conclusions reached in the earlier thread are now considered ancient history, and both moderators’ and members’s gloves can come off altogether. If this thread is any indication, that certainly seems to be the case. I don’t think you should consider anything has changed. I posted all of this without consulting anyone, and if the PTB think I overstepped the line, I hope they tell me. I’ve turned myself in about my post, and hope I get some feedback about it from other mods/Admins etc. Here’s my problem with QED. He says I’m “full of shit” because I did something that isn’t explicity spelled out in the rules. I suppose I should have said “you’re possibly mistaken, sir” but it came out as “fuck you.” ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/32 "2006-02-11T03:36:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ll infer what I please. Is there a rule prohibiting threads about activities violating foriegn law written down anywhere? No. Has a rule prohibiting threads violating foriegn law ever been enforced? No. Does starting a thread about violating foriegn law break the “Don’t be a jerk rule”? No. You have absolutely no basis to claim that the thread in question violated any rule or policy of the SDMB. > > This is simply further evidence that you do not have a firm grasp of the SDMB rules and your response to Q.E.D. is yet another example of your lack the requisite tact to be a moderator. You simply can’t adequately perform the functions of a moderator and you should resign. If you won’t then you certainly should be fired. First of all, learn how to spell “foreign.” If you don’t have a spellchecker on your browser, get one. Reading it once is bad enough, but the repitition is …repetitive. Yes, you can infer what you please. Just don’t go on about it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/33 "2006-02-11T03:36:46Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Probably not. Further evidence that you have a poor grasp on the rules of the SDMB. Telling someone how to illegally immigrate to the US is a clear violation of US law and thus the rules of the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/34 "2006-02-11T03:38:54Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > First of all, learn how to spell “foreign.” If you don’t have a spellchecker on your browser, get one. Reading it once is bad enough, but the repitition is …repetitive. > > Yes, you can infer what you please. Just don’t go on about it. I am sorry, did you mean I should get a **spell checker** becuase the rep **e** tition is repetitve? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/35 "2006-02-11T03:58:17Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > I suppose I should have said “you’re possibly mistaken, sir” but it came out as “fuck you.” Twice? :dubious: Please. You were being deliberately nasty because I called you on what is, IMO, a bad decision. I told you that I think you’re full of shit. Oh, boo hoo. If that’s the worst thing anyone ever says to you, you’re doing better than most people. I _do_ think you’re full of shit, in this case. The reason I think you’re full of shit, and the reason I said so, was this part of one of your posts: > [@samclem](#): > > I just have this gut feeling that my lord and masters(praise be their names) just might have a queasy feeling in their collective guts about a thread advocating breaking laws in other countries, and telling people how to do it. If the Reader were so concerned about discussion on violating laws in countries other than the US, then why in the Rules were they _so_ specific about discussions which might violate _US law_? Twice. And now I also think you’re full of shit because despite the fact that you admit there is no explicit rule covering the thread in question or which barred me from posting that link, you _deliberately_ said “…FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole.”, which carries a clear implication that I had done so in willful violation of some rule, to stir up trouble or to be spiteful. And _that_ is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![VegemiteMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/df788c/32.png) [@VegemiteMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VegemiteMoose)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/36 "2006-02-11T04:12:15Z")
I cannot explain why, but this thread fills my head with the ‘buzzing bees of unease’ more than any other I’ve read on this messageboard. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/37 "2006-02-11T04:16:28Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > And now I also think you’re full of shit because despite the fact that you admit there is no explicit rule covering the thread in question or which barred me from posting that link, you _deliberately_ said “…FUCK YOU for providing the link. Asshole.”, which carries a clear implication that I had done so in willful violation of some rule, to stir up trouble or to be spiteful. And _that_ is > bullshit. There is no _explicit_ rule which bars you from posting that link. But you know that. But you, as a fairly intelligent poster, know that posting things that are controversial is a grey area. Your strong suit is digging up cites faster than most posters. You’re good at it. You’re _great_ at it. But that doesn’t mean that you have to post everything that you find on the Web. I don’t think you posted that link to be spiteful, I don’t think you posted it to willfully violate anything. I don’t think you posted it to stir up trouble. You wouldn’t do that. I think you posted it _oblivious_ to what it might mean. Your only objective was to post it because you’re good at what you do. That doesn’t mean you _should_ have posted it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/38 "2006-02-11T04:16:32Z")
> [@VegemiteMoose](#): > > I cannot explain why, but this thread fills my head with the ‘buzzing bees of unease’ more than any other I’ve read on this messageboard. That would be the Chinese spying on you. I’d suggest getting out your emergency tin foil hat (you do have an emergency tin foil hat right?). ---
**Author:** ![VegemiteMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/df788c/32.png) [@VegemiteMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VegemiteMoose)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/39 "2006-02-11T04:22:40Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That would be the Chinese spying on you. I’d suggest getting out your emergency tin foil hat (you do have an emergency tin foil hat right?). I put tinfoil hats on my cats. As we were instructed to do by our overlords. ‘Our cats are our firewall’ spake our Lord XvbYth’s! Do you dare disagree??!!! ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/40 "2006-02-11T04:34:14Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > I don’t think you posted that link to be spiteful, I don’t think you posted it to willfully viloate anything. I don’t think you posted it to stir up trouble. You wouldn’t do that. I think you posted it _oblivious_ to what it might mean. Your only objective was to post it because you’re good at what you do. That doesn’t mean you _should_ have posted it. I appreciate the kind words, I really do, however, I must take exception to this part. If you really thought all of that, you would not have said “fuck you for providing the link”. If you _really_ though that, there would be an apology in there, but for some odd reason, I’m not seeing it. All I’m seeing is a whole lot of backpedalling. Blowing sunshine up my ass isn’t going to make me forget you were deliberately abusive for no good reason. And, please, don’t pretend to know my purpose and motives for posting that link for **WindWalker**. You don’t. I posted it fully aware that it might be considered a grey area, but since it wasn’t explicity against the rules I did so anyway, because it was the _right damn thing_ to do. Oblivious? No. I knew exactly what it meant, and that’s precisely _why_ I posted it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911.md?page=3)