| [College of ACES] | [University of Illinois] | [Illinois CES] | [Active Discussion Group] |
| |||
| Tree Climbers Discussion Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Post a Question
As usual, I read your posting and was challenged, changed, and cheery. You have summed up very well some of my thoughts on the November Massacre. Like I said, you are noticeable by your absence. Please think about coming back. Who wins and who looses if you are not around to lend a sage's view on our world? The ISA may need to get a thumb in the eye once in a while.
There are a couple of words that might need consideration in light of the November Massacre. The first is CENSOR. When I looked up the word in my dictionary the root is from Latin, censere, and there are a couple of definitions that apply here (I won't transcribe all).
1 one of two Roman magistrates appointed to take the census, and later, to supervise public morals; hence,
2 any supervisor of public morals; person who tells people how to behave.
3 a person whose task is to examine literature, motion pictures, etc., and to remove or prohibit anything considered unsuitable.
4 any faultfinder or adverse critic; censurer
Which apply? You decide...
Another word that you use that I like is YAHOO. If I remember correctly, this comes from Jonathan Swift's parody of English society, Gulliver's Travels. Correct me if I am wrong...Weren't the YAHOO'S the horse people who lived in their own excrement and thought nothing of it?
'nuff said I think....
When Americans speak of RIGHTS we generally refer to RIGHTS given to us under the Bill of Rights and Constitution. There have been references to the "Right of Free Speech and the Press". This comes from Article One of the Bill of Rights.
Religious establishment prohibited, Freedom of Speech, of the Press, and Right to Petition.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but I believe this RIGHT that we refer to restricts the GOVERNMENT from restricting speech and the press. We cannot be restricted from what we say on public grounds by the Government. When we are on private property, the owners of that property have the RIGHT to restrict our free speech. You see, there are limits to our "Freedoms". This has been upheld by many court cases.
The ISA is not a form of government so they can do as they please. If we as members, assuming that all participants in this forum are members, demand that our governing body follow "the law of the Land" then they are out of line in censoring the Discussion Group and accountable to the members for their actions.
The accounting that was given IS capricious (from Italinian-capriccio, a shivering, whim). If there are rules to follow when taking part in this Discussion Group, let us know them. If we don't know the rules, how can we play the game
Since July I have been participating in this Group and have read some postings that made me cringe and others that have made me howl with laughter. At no time did I see any guidelines for use. Before I got online I read the "Arborist On-line" column in Arborist News and don't remember any discussion of rules.
Do we need to have a "Constitutional Convention" like the one in Philadelphia in 1787. That is where delegates got together to revise the Articles of Confederation that weren't working. Out of these meetings the delegates drew up a Constitution that has governed us for over two hundred years. Do we need an "Internet Constitution".
At a minimum we should know who edits/censors this Discussion Group. Next, we should know the rules for behavior. Take the time to lift the phone and call the ISA office if this is important enough to you. Write a real paper letter...
Strong words and snug syntax!
Tom Dunlap
Dear Bob,
Come back to the Group!