New
#30
Sorry about that, you write very well but I think what made me ask the question was when you answered Kari and made the remark, "Oh, I thought it had something to do with the new law, because it was posted to "Current News" -section."
Once again Welcome to the forum and I think your English is better than some English
You can not be serious?
You are saying that a country adding internet access to citizens civil rights is OT for a news section on a computer / OS forums?
Could you please post a list of topics you accept? In this section, we've had lively discussions about piracy, connection speeds, online criminality, Bill Gates & Steven Jobbs and other IT personalities, laws governing internet, a bill introduced by your American democrats about Internet sales tax, planned British broadband tax etc. Here are also several threads with absolutely no connection to computing and IT.
You recommending censorship is not a surprise to me, after reading how you are against a government's work for equality. I, on the other hand, would still like to read news about everything and anything connected to computing, Internet and IT.
Sincerely, Kari
I didn't say it was off-topic. I said it's impossible to discuss this subject without breaking General Rule #4. Your statement wholeheartedly supporting this policy is as political as my statement wholeheartedly opposing it. You can't be serious if you actually believe only those who disagree with you are being politically-minded, so I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say.
The latter three of that list of yours are perfect examples of what I see as purely political topics. None of those topics can be discussed in an apolitical fashion, because politics is at their very core.
I have to admit, with all due respect, I am not in the least surprised by your accusations. But if banning politically-controversial articles is "censorship", aren't most if not all of the official forum rules censorship as well, especially rule #4?
As soon as I'm able to confirm with an SF staff member that I will not be breaking any rules (better safe than sorry), I would be delighted to continue the original debate, starting by addressing your comment referring to this new law as "working for equality."