Censorship on PMQ?

So I guess I’m a little concerned about the censorship that has taken place on the minimum wage issue. While I am in total disagreeance on the point of view of that has caused so much chaos amongst the members, I still think that he has a right to voice his opinion. I guess I just don’t see why we would blockout people that have a completely different view point. That just seems kind of, big brotherish? Anyways, I would think that as long as people are acting appropriately they should be able to participate in this forum and that’s coming from someone that is in complete disagreeance of the particular person that has caused all of this rucus.

I don’t feel it’s censorship when action is taken against a poster that continuously trolls for arguments with the membership of this board (or any moderated board for that matter). It wasn’t his viewpoint that was in question; it was his the continuous insults and ridicule that led to the lockdown of those threads. Bottom line was they were going no where in a positive manner.

I think Bodeghwy said it best when he began this thread… invited Gregster to become an active contributor. But Gregster never responded, nor discontinued his condescending and repetitive posts.

“as long as people are acting appropriately”


Look, some of you are also responsible for turning it into a not very nice discussion.

I don’t know if anyone noticed, but gregster and I were having a reasonable discussion in one of those threads as they were simply deleted. I’m not too happy about that. I took the time to get a decent discussion going and it was just yanked out because someone decided that was the way to go.

I’m not defending him or his facts. But I was trying to get to the bottom of the truth - and to see if what he was saying had any validity whatsoever. I have reason to believe that he might in fact be right - if not at least partially as I have seen the dominos in my area totally change the way they are paying driver compensation - more along the lines of the model that gregster was talking about.

If you didn’t like what he had to say - or even HOW he said it - then just stay away from the threads, simple as that. It always takes two to tango, eh?

I don’t think he was being abusive, but I might not of read every post. It wasn’t like he was ‘spamming’ or taking up every thread. No one forced any of you to respond to his argument or ‘facts’, even though he was completely off base. I totally disagree with the removal of that thread.

The man had a axe to grind. This is a public forum and he crossed the line. You can always pm.

I must of missed a couple of his posts. What line did he cross?

For me, it was the THIRD thread that was routed over to minimum wage/compensation jihad. It started as a single thread that was initiated by the poster in question. Then, the subject matter was thrust into a discussion about insurance liability and a driver complaint. Then, it was fired up into a third that I do not remember the subject matter.

You want to talk about a topic, start a thread. You start hijacking other threads to take more audience and maybe try to dominate more of the conversation, then it becomes rude and invasive. You start making unfounded accusations and statements to arouse emotional response on all three threads, then you are out of line.

Just look at how much time, space and energy is being spent dealing with this one person and his impact on this discussion board. Scant few other people have had this disruptive an effect here since I joined. Does this look and fee like productive, solution oriented discourse among professionals? It does not to me. That is what lets me know that the topics and direction of discussion needed to be stopped, and that the originator of the discussions needs a different approach when entering an established group.

Your opinions may vary, and that is a good thing. Just don’t call me stupid or misquote my statements because I disagree . . . see what I mean?


yep - agree with Nick also.

I don’t actually think the post should have been deleted as there was some merit in what the guy was saying. The plain fact was he took any post which questioned his points (many of which were valid) as an attack and point blank that the other persons views were wrong. To end up accusing anyone of not complying with any law without knowing anything about our business is just asking for trouble.

Add to the fact he would misquote people and took ‘snapshots’ of comments, many times out of context, the post should have been locked and moved on with.

He accussed several people, including me, of violating various laws. He does not know me, has never worked in my store and does not have access to payroll records. The only communication I had concerning him was to suggest that people quite responding to him because of his tone. His proof I was not in compliance with the law. ? I did not prove, to him, to his satifasfaction, that I was in compliance with the law. I also did not prove to him that I do not beat my wife, I also have not proven on this board that I was not involved in the 9-11 plot, I was not involved in either the RFK or MLK shootings (I was to young to plot when JFK was shot) or the development or spread of the aids virus. Using Gregster logic I must be guilty of all of these. Back in the day we used to require evidence before declaring people guilty.

I spent ten years in uniform defending the constitution of this country and take the rights we have here very seriously. Freedom of speech does not include the right to make false accusations of illegal activity in the public forum. Had Gregster taken a different approach a conversation may have been possible. The starting point of You are making an unfair profit by cheating your employees (My words, not a direct quote) made a reasonable conversation unlikely. Furthermore, if you disagree with him or question him in any way, you are obviously guilty.

Tank Tank is well within their rights to restrict the conversation in this forum just as I restrict conversation in my store. If an employee is being confrontational and causing problems I point out the problem. If it continues I point it out more clearly and sternly, if it continues I eliminate the problem. gregster was informed several times that his confrontational approach and unfounded accusations were not appreciated. When he continued in the same way, moderators were asked to deal with him. If TT members or the moderators believe that I am creating an environment hostile to the free exchange of ideas they have the right, and the responsiblty to address it. Mr Gregster also has the right to express his opinion in any forum that will have him, or he can create his own. If he continues making false accusations about people in public, someone with more time than I have may take legal action.

Just my opinion and hopefully it is worth more than you paid for it.

Rick G

Directly accusing someone of breaking the law is wrong and so is calling someone stupid. If he couldn’t get his point across in a more respectable manner then the posts should of been deleted. I guess I must of missed those (there were so many)