<Ausar> allowing it without doing anything at all about it would be cowardly

which shows more strength and courage? To remove someone who think has offended, or to endure or ignore them? I think any time you limit someone else’s freedom you have limited your own, if that group decided you were talking about something they didn’t want to hear, how quickly do you think they’d turn on you and boot your ass out too?

<Ausar> heresy doesn't portent to any ideal of freedom of speech
<Ausar> knot does, i understand his reasoning behind it, but just look at the crowd it gathers

How can you? You’re rarely there, I’d dare say never there. Aye heresy doesn’t; if it did half the people there would not be there, why? Because they cannot handle such freedoms, they would sooner run away.

You understand his reasoning behind it then why am I so hard to understand for you? What do you mean just look at the crowd it gathers? Look at the crowd heresy gathers! People who get stoned all the fucking time and playing with modulated colors in chats and boot whoever says a word of contention, if you didn’t notice, Aus, I was being kicked around like a football simply for questioning your actions. Look at THAT crowd.

,Ausar> calling it cowardly is just as foolish as when a religious person says "atheists have more faith than me"

I don’t believe you can effectively gauge courage and cowardice with faith and unbelief. Those don’t’ correlate well. They may or may not have more faith but their reasoning’s are their own and don’t lend themselves to scrutiny. Courage and cowardice though always lend themselves.

<Ausar> problem is, i know it wasn't cowardly and i know your tactic, so i know that tactic's faults as well
<Barrett> But it falls under the definition
<Ausar> no it doesn't

cow•ard•ice lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.

I believe your particular adventure lies in difficulty and opposition. You didn’t want to hear what he had to say because “he always says the same things over and over for the same purpose”.
You find this difficult to deal with, therefore you boot. Instead of “showing him up” like you were trying to do to me. Of course you say you deal with it by booting. But that is not what I am referring to here,

I will differentiate; I am talking about the content and context of subject matter maxx is talking about, you cannot deal with that in an intellectual way or a non-violent way. So you deal with it by route of cowardice that I explained for you above.

<Ausar> i effectively silenced him
<Ausar> i don't see maxx being a troll in heresy anymore
<Ausar> i win
<Ausar> you're arguing for a position that you can only lose with
<Ausar> i don't understand why anybody would do that other than merely to bother people

So I must be included on your list of people to boot for simply opening my mouth soon eh, Aus, Maybe on the same list as knot for sight booting?
That you effectively silenced him is what I’m talking about, that’s the cowardly part that should rarely be done and only for specific reasons. We weren’t discussing whether or not he was still in heresy so your little aversion is cute

but useless.

<Ausar> that i didn't address it the way you wanted me to is besides the point. thats life. i am under no obligation to fulfill any role for trolls. we all know what maxx was doing, if you don't then you simply haven't seen him enough. i have engaged his line of thought on the handful of issues he routinely and predictably takes a stand on. when he is shown to be wrong, he ignores it.

The “I am under no obligation” phrase really scares me. How long before you are considered a troll, Aus? How long before your ideas and opposition is silenced?
That is the point, this cowardice knows no end, and people like hitcher can arbitrarily decide that you are being offensive and trolling. Same goes for most for the regs/admins in that room.

So we can assume what maxx is doing, whatever.

We know what gangs are doing too; we should just preemptively off them as well.

He’s not the only one in that room who ignores it when being shown he is flawed.

<Ausar> he is not concerned with having a discussion about those things. he is only concerned with getting somebody in particular pissed off for the sake of it.

I asked you this once before why would you let him piss you off?
Cause the onus isn’t on him to control your emotion that’s on YOU, Aus, No one else.
You didn’t even know what he was concerned about because he only said one fucking sentence before you booted him.

You belong in the bush administration with a trigger finger like that.

<Ausar> and as far as freedom of speech is concerned, you go around calling people an asshole or a bitch long enough and eventually you'll get punched in the face and people will just stop talking to you

GOOD. Why the fuck would I want bitches and asshole talking to me?
Unless you mean to say that I am just calling people names for the sake of it, which I don’t do.

<Ausar> being kicked from a chatroom is the equivilent of that, i think

you have an ignore button. It’s way more viable than the kick button. If someone is being a bitch I reserve the right to call them so whenever I want.
If the bitch is offended and removes me he or she is also a coward.
Like you.

<Ausar> in afk life, people can't say the things they say in here. the only coward in this situation is maxx, by that measure. he wouldn't say in f2f what he says online and he only says it here because people here can't physically grab him by the neck

I do that all the time, I say things as they are. “Tell it like it is” – Ludacris
Maxx might not because he may be a coward too aye. But that don’t mean you need to be just as cowardly.

<Ausar> again, a kick is a viable alternative

for a coward.