Does LL = George Soros?

The Lindens can support Kerry if they want to And they had the right to be there and cheer for Kerry. They are NOT a 501 non-profit organization so they can support Kerry and the Democratic party all they want to.

Oh surely they can. The question is if it's good business sense or ethical to do so... I didn't see anyone post a legal definition contrary to yours.

Interesting, you added things to this????

Highly interesting.

Well, it seemed he was saying the Lindens were bound by the same restrictions as those companies under 501 Non-Profit status. And I was just wanting to point out they are not. However, I may also not entirely understand what he is saying in the first place.

Umm Magnum, he is explaining that Ulrika changed it after the uproar. it didn't originally explain that the whole group was not in support of the rally or that it was sponsored solely by SDF.

Errr

Can I retract my statement

Being anti-war does not mean you are PRO-KERRY. In fact, I would hope that even if Kerry was elected the title would have been "Anti-war Anti-Kerry rally". That being said, I hope the next one doesn't have any leaders names in the title. Too many people see anti- in front of their guys name and they freak out and think it's an invitation to fight.

And I mean who really gives a shit if someone hates the rich, lying prick of a politician you voted for. They are ALL liars, cheats and theives. Questions ALL OF THEM. ALL SIDES. Stop giving your blind trust to liars, cheats and theives, no matter what "side" they're on. The next time someone says Bush is a prick, tell them "yeah, they are ALL corrupt pricks, on all sides. It's our job to keep them honest, not blindly support ONE side and ONE side alone."

I am disgusted that every effort to focus the discussion on peace is misdirected towards a "side-vs-side" conflict. What's next guys? After you have people programmed enough into hating someone because of the colour of their tie, what's next?

I can clear up what I was saying on this.. very simply.

No employee of a publicly run company can act as a moderator of any public event without implying to an audience, at the very least, that the corporate entity is supportive of the event - period.

If that is the case, that LL does support the event in terms of content, conduct or anything else, then they have stepped over a pretty clear ethical line with me. I said with ME. YMMV.

Disagree....? Cool. Tell me why and don't argue legalisms. I am not a lawyer and certainly not one versed in international law/cyberspace law/law as CAlifornia legislature has passed it.

That's the first post reworded (in part) in a nutshell.

I agree 100%. This is precisely why I feel i do not have a party and am not represented. It' become a damned sport.

Who cares Jack?

Argue that somewhere else.

Lindens occasionally attend controversial events to prevent disruptions. Our role is not to moderate events but wherever we are, we will ask people to conform to the Community Standards depending on the rating of the sim. The fact that we are at a particular event in no way reflects a Linden endorsement of the event.

Stated, very simply, you are making the wrong comparison. If Phillip had been at the event to moderate, you would be right to question. However, Haney/Jill being there implying support for the event is like saying that police officers who work at a KKK parade to keep the peace support the KKK because they are there. LL provides a "safety"/disciplinary support role in SL through their liasons, somewhat analagous to police in RL.

Jill didn't participate in the political discussion. Jill simply kept peace between people having widely disparate views.

Finally, a response clearing up what actually happened as opposed to the misinformation contained in Ulrika's post. LL personnel did NOT moderate. Fine.


Note how Haney's response was a statement of corporate policy and the coporation's desired interpretation of their actions by non-corporate audiences and NOT a clarification of what actually occured.



I find that interesting.

OTOH, as has been argued in many posts in this forum, where speech is concerned (and actions ARE a form of speech), silence can be construed as consent. "Preventing disruptions" is a euphemism for allowing certain parties to continue to behave as they are behaving in some circumstances - this one in particular. LL encouraged the continuance of the "protest event" by ensuring that it was allowed to continue - thus acting in a manner complicit with the aims of those holding it. That is providing an endorsement - just as much as locals in the town of Dachau were complicit in what happened in that concentration camp tho they may never have set foot inside the camp itself.

I think this entire event and the actions of LL with respect to it should continue to be examined - both by corporate management and by residents.

There was absolutely nothing about the event that violated the TOS, which is the only reason Linden Lab would have intervened on the event. The event holders were well within TOS, and had no reason to have their event stopped. The nature of subject ensured that there would be passionate expressions voiced there, so a liason attended to ensure that things remained calm. For you to make a comparison to concentration camps is so unbelievably sickening and out there that I have finally realized you are not actually looking for an kind of answer or understanding, you are just intent on stirring up shit.

You obviously do not understand the technique of analogy and obviously did NOT read what I said.

Let me try again only a little "slower and simpler" fo ryou. --- I SAID that non-action by a bystander is complicity in an act by another. The analogy is that German civilians living in the town of Dachau and not working in the concentration camp there, but knowing what was going on, are as complicit in the crimes that history/global society has judged the actions there to have been as those who actually worked in the camps and/or gave the orders for them to operate as they did.

For a Linden employee (wearing the Linden surname) to attend an event that is staged as an "anti-Bush" event is to say that Linden Labs supports the concept of the event - even though Linden employee actions are only as "observers". Should a Linden employee actually "moderate" or otherwise materially participate in such an event then the coporate approval can more easily be seen.

Is that clear enough for you?


As for stirring up shit, read my posts in this thread. I am arguing a point of coporate behavior from both a practical and ethical perspective. You seem to be getting all emotional about it. Talk to the hand.

Ok. That was just condesending and rude. It totally defeats your purpose of debate. I personally would blame no one for not reading anything else you just posted because of that line. I know I did not.

And this wasn't condescending and rude...

Cristiano Midnight said ---" I have finally realized you are not actually looking for an (sic) kind of answer or understanding, you are just intent on stirring up shit."
???

Get a life.

Screw you! I have two already thank you very much. And no, his was not condesending. Incorrect assumption perhaps, that is up to you to prove. But you were just flat out obvious in your condesending tone.

Geez. "Get a life"?? I am not used to being talked to that way. Generally because I do not deserve to be talked to in that tone. So in a nutshell. Bite me.

Korg,

Just thought I'd mention this since you appear to overlook it.

Being Anti-Bush is not illegal or immoral.
Throwing an Anti-Bush Rally is not illegal or immoral.


Kay?

Last response to you... anything you post here..

"Bite me"? No thanks.. I prefer sweet meat, not sour bitterness.

*kicks Korg for being mean to Pen* ok. I dun like you no more.

Can I bite you Pen?

I have read every post in this thread from you, and my conclusion has not changed. You are simple and slow enough for me Korg to take shots at and get direct hits without even really trying. Your analogy was chosen for a purpose, which was to inflame and subtley make a link to Linden Lab's actions, the reason Hitler/concentration camps always end up in a post that has nothing whatsoever to do with that subject. On top of that, your analogy is a false one. In the case of concentration camps and people standing by while others were murdered, that was a crime being committed that no one tried to stop. In the case of this event, there was nothing at all against the TOS. A protest against President Bush is fully allowed in SL, as would be an anti-Kerry event, a pro-Bush event, hell a pro-Communism event. A liason being there to keep peace in no way implies sponsorship of the event. The only thing it states is that they do uphold freedom of speech in Second Life that does not violate the terms of service, something you cannot seem to get through your simple and slow brain. Talk to the hand and get a life. Great comebacks there lol. Simple and slow, indeed.

Actually, I mostly thought you were pretty funny, but you have crossed the line recently between troll and bastage.

And any more nastiness to my Penny Wenny and I shall hunt you down and do unmentionable stuff to your avatar.