Why should I blog myself when all I would be doing is repeating well documented historical facts?

My reply to the Anzac topic was not of a political nature, but based on well known and well accepted historical documentation that can be found in any one of 1001 books, and can be seen on oodles of television documentaries, and has been openly taught in Australian schools from way back whenever to current day.

For those of you that know me will be able to confirm I am a non political person.

I deny I have insulted or offended anyone.

If my comment had no place on the classic ford forum due to being off topic then the Anzac topic itself should be removed. All I was doing was replying to that topic.

If I have inadvertently breached forum rules by speaking non classic ford then I apologise However if this is so, the topic “THE PUB” should have a clear concise footnote informing users of the limitations of the forum. As stands “THE PUB” appears to be an area of open discussions of any topic.

Forum groups by their nature are environments promoting educated open discussions. By deleting/removing that educated discussion without prior warning or acknowledgement to the author is preventing that open discussion. Hence therefore can be assumed as blatant poorly administered censorship of true documented facts, of which I am critical.

Anyway good luck with it all.

I am making my protest vote and will say no more.

I was on a corolla forum cause one of my good mates plays around with them. In there pub section they were having a go at 'ricers' in that post they posted anything and everything. ie a Mitsubishi 380 a FG falcon I thought it was strange. Well anyways I started a topic asking who disliked skylines. And made a comment that a skyline is still a skyline even if it has 1000hp. Well that got removed and any posts were i voiced my opinion that skylines are stupid got removed. So i deleted all my posts and left. As I felt I had a right to voice that opinion.

Point of my story... if Peter felt he had a right to voice what he said I can understand why he up and left.

I dont know what he said but I don't see why it should be removed unless it was raciest or defamatory ect. If it is just someone not liking what was said or a admin not liking what was said I say Peter is justified in leaving. There are lots of things I dont agree with on the internet but thats the beauty of it, if i dont like it I dont read it. I just close the tab or click back. And think to myself how are people so stupid or how stupid do you have to be to think like that. =P

According to the link below the Australian constitution does NOT guarantee freedom of speech as most people think, in America the bill of rights covers all that stuff.

I did see what was posted and thought it was unnecessary and not in the the spirit of the thread.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

Likewise I did not see the post and I think the comment above hits the nail on the head "was unnecessary and not in the the spirit of the thread". Saying that, I support the actions taken and you just can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time!

Irrespective if it's a documented fact there are occations where a statemnt may be considered inappropriate under certain circumstances and it's disappointing it has come to this.

Just for the record,Peter i did not report you.




.."I MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT ILL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT".


Regards
James

Over moderation would be deleting this topic[:p] Bud has always been more than fair in the way he administers this forum and that has been no different this time round

I always thought he (Peter M) was a Labor Party Stooge

Thankyou PeterM.....I did read your posting B4 it was removed, and was quite taken by your views. So I Googled the history behind it all and was quite astounded by what I found. A few more people should educate themselves regarding the leadup to this war, botched by incompetant British commanders and it's waste of life...thankyou again Peter, I have certainly learen't something, especially when I have the medals of a relative who never came back from Gallipoli.
As John North wrote, "No battleground so easily lends itself to retrospective sentimentality", and, sadly, to mythology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by laurie

I always thought he (Peter M) was a Labor Party Stooge

---

Peter was better value than any plod. It's a shame he went.

Plod???