Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DaretothREdux (44.98)

WARNING! This Blog May Offend You

Recs

30

February 13, 2009 – Comments (43) | RELATED TICKERS: SOR

Warning! This Blog May Offend You

That was what I almost titled my blog yesterday. But after careful cosideration, I didn’t because I didn't find it to be anymore offensive than most of my other posts. Besides, I thought Warning! Say No To *** ******! was a far funnier title.

The post garnered ten recs in a matter of hours. Everything seemed to be going well. People were laughing and joking around with me in the comments (which I always greatly appreciate when I post my comedic satire blogs).

I went to sleep. I woke up. I hit the refresh button…

(BLANK PAGE)

WTF? I hit refresh again. I wanted to know how many recs I had gotten (shameful, I know), and perhaps see more witty comments from my readership. But instead, I found that my post had been removed. Let me rephrase that.

My post had been CENSORED!

Naturally, this came as a shock to me. I knew of only one other incident of a blog post being removed. It was a post by DownWithInfidels which was extremely racist toward the Jewish nation. I didn’t necessarily agree with TMF taking the post down, but nevertheless I could see their reasons. DownWithInfidels (to my knowledge) was not joking when he made racist/anti-american/anti-capitalism/terroristic type comments. Some people thought his comments were amusing, but even so, he wasn’t kidding.

I’m not saying that TMF wasn’t within its rights to remove his post (or mine) as this is their website and if they choose they can remove any post. In fact, I’m sure it’s in the Terms of Agreement (although I never read those things).

What is shocking to me is that TMF would remove my post. It was clearly a joke, and not a great deal more offensive than my posts mocking Obama’s Heroin Hope or where I suggest people Invest in Heroin…or my advocation that people STOP PAYING TAXES, or how about where I had Santa Claus drop the F bomb!

Certainly, some of these posts must have offended someone? Yet, they were not removed. Perhaps, these posts merely went unnoticed, and now that I have brought them to TMF's attention and I will later find them removed and myself banned from blogging.

I hope not. I enjoy blogging. I am thrilled when I can make even one person laugh or think.

So, why then was my blog removed? Here is the reason I was given by TMF:

Hi There,

The following was removed. Although it has its humorous elements, it is offensive to a significant portion of our members.

Regards,

So, there you have it folks. Offensive to a significant portion of our members…

I honestly don’t know what that means. I don’t know which parts were too offensive, and which parts were just offensive enough to be funny. Perhaps, the entire thing every line was offensive?

I know one thing. I would hate to have that guy’s job. Can you imagine if you job was to stop the free flow of ideas? Even worse, having to make a judgment call on what was offensive to a significant portion of our members. How much is significant? One, two, 1/3rd , ½? Was I reported by someone? Did someone take the time to click on my blog (after reading the title), read my blog, decide they were offended and then go to the effort of reporting me to TMF?

How does that person survive on a daily basis? Do they not watch television or listen to the radio? They apparently browse the internet and trust me it’s not the best place to hang out if you never want to be offended.

Can you imagine if the Fool pulled everything that offended even one person? Sorry Bravo you can’t post about Christianity, people might be offended. After all, people have burned Bibles before. Now do not misunderstand. I am not trying to elevate my writing to the same level as The Bible, but my point stands. Who decides where we stop censorship. I didn’t post a pornographic picture! I posted words words words! Perhaps, the only tool left in the English language which still allows for people to say anything (outside of screaming fire in a crowded building).

This isn’t TMF I know. The one I knew allowed people to pretty much say anything outside of all out racism, especially, if it was obvious that it was in good fun. And mine even came with a valid point!

So, I am going to try and beat the system. I have put my blog in goggle docs and I am making it available to anyone who wished to decide for themselves what they think about it.

I am fully disclosing to you that if you are easily offended then DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK.

NOTE: It is my hope that TMF will not pull this blog since I linked it elsewhere and warned people not click it. But I don’t know if that makes it alright or not. I’m not the judge of such things, and if ever offered such a job, I would emphatically refuse.

And if you feel so inclined, you may rec this (hopefully) non-offensive blog. Hey, since I lost all those recs from yesterday it’s only fair…

And for the not easily offended who enjoy sophomoric humor and satire with a purpose, then I must warn you:

You may laugh!

43 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 13, 2009 at 9:10 AM, tomjones42 (< 20) wrote:

Being an FFD (Former Fat Dude), I can honestly say I wasn't offended. Some people just need to lighten up, or maybe it's just that it is so difficult to offend me. I will continue to say no to fat chicks regardless, its a personal preference.

Report this comment
#2) On February 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

Thanks  tomjones42,

And I think it's only fair if I post the same video as yesterday since it went so well with the blog:

Report this comment
#3) On February 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Gingerbreadman55 (31.75) wrote:

I lol'ed

 

But I think "fat" in america is currently in the grey area between "something you just dont say to someone" and "call them out on their problem."

Its an interesting study in social behavior as a culture begins to accept calling something a problem. Smoking went through the same transition years ago.

-GB

Report this comment
#4) On February 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, givmeabreak (29.72) wrote:

Dude, that was beyond sophomoric. That was by far the most morally corrupt thing I've ever read on TMF.

I don't know if it should have been censored, but you should police yourself and have self-control.

And to think you were offended that Alstry refered to Mary as a locker room slut, and then you go an post what you did. Seems hypocritical.

What would your fiance think if she read that?

Report this comment
#5) On February 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

Actually...I didn't say Mary was a locker room slut.....I said the way she spoke was like that of a locker room slut....a difference with a serious distinction.

Report this comment
#6) On February 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

givmeabreak,

It's good of you to be my moral conscience.

My fiance has read it. She thinks it's hilarious btw. Probably because it really happened (the plane incident) to a friend of mine...

And a quick distinction as to my "hypocrisy." Mine was obviously a complete a joke (albeit a dirty joke but those are funny as well).

Alstry wasn't joking (even if it was he claims a reference to her speech), either way it was a reference to her. And I know she was insulted and not simply offended.

I seriously doubt I have offended the world of pornography (or any member therein) with my post.

If you can't see the distinction, then I'm not really sure how to explain it to you.

I guess one would be like if I made jokes about Lawyers and the other would be like if your mother were an attorney and I called her a *****.

Report this comment
#7) On February 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM, RonChapmanJr (98.37) wrote:

the MF that many of us came to appreciate is changing.

from ads for market timing to blog censorship, you should not expect this place to be the same it was even a year or 2 ago.

that being said, i'm not unhappy they took down your post, it was a bit extreme, even as a joke.

peace,

ron

Report this comment
#8) On February 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM, oregonrogue (< 20) wrote:

DaretothREdux

That was one funnee azz post!  Keep em coming.

Good luck to all today!

oregonrogue

72 degrees and sweet smelling sewage in this little sandbox they call Iraq 

 

Report this comment
#9) On February 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM, JibJabs (94.70) wrote:

I thought the post was funny. . . because I'm a guy. Deeper down, I was ashamed to be laughing as I think you should be for having posted that blog. It was witty, clever, and derogatory. Our crazy culture spends so much time focused on looks and body-type that I can understand how the Fool administrators wanted to make this a haven from Vogue-esque publications. Save those posts for GQ if you insist on writing those borderline misogynistic comments- they don't belong here.

Report this comment
#10) On February 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Option1307 (30.51) wrote:

Hilarious as usual Dare.

 But seriously man, you don't see why they (TMF) took it down? It was a tad bit offensive for some people i'm sure, even for your standards. Not so much the fat jokes, more the crude/sexual comments.

Once again, it was rather funny and has a random/strange conenction to a very valid point. Keep up the good work.

Report this comment
#11) On February 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, eldemonio (98.81) wrote:

Being an obese porn star who uses bjs to get rides, I am deeply offended by your blog.  Thank goodness that TMF is looking out for me.  Shame on you Dare.

Report this comment
#12) On February 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM, givmeabreak (29.72) wrote:

I am saying you are hypocritcal based on CHARACTER.

Your post shows that you have low morals and NO CHARACTER.

So, you calling out Alstry for his slut inference is hypocritical, given your abhorrent post.

And, I will be your moral conscience, b/c you solicited our opinions on the post!

And, I'm not talking about what your fiance thought of your friend's story, I'm talking about what she would say about your post.

If you don't understand that, then I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Report this comment
#13) On February 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM, givmeabreak (29.72) wrote:

Another way to litmus test that post, is to ask yourself the question: would my mother be embarrassed to read that post and find out I was the author?

You seem to enjoy writing and the spotlight, so use your skills to rise to the challenge of coming up with material that is above the Howard Stern crowd mentality. They are easy to write for and get approval from.

This site for the most part, I like to think, is filled with folks much more sophisticated than that. It requires more thought. There is a higher level of professionalism and decorum that comes with that. Hence, your post was pulled, IMO.

Don't get me wrong Dare, I am not against dirty jokes, nor am I a saint. Especially in college. But, at some point, you have to rise above that stuff a little.

Report this comment
#14) On February 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM, ricoy5 (26.16) wrote:

Sorry dude... I don't think you're going to get much support on that.. it's pretty crass.  Funny, yes.  but still unnecessary.  Just because you CAN say something... SHOULD YOU? 

You're sill a very funny guy, and maybe pushing the envelope is what you do... but you seem to be running the risk of being a literate, funny LordZ...

Report this comment
#15) On February 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

There are a bazillion places on the web where you can post whatever you want to post. If you make a free blog on blogger or wordpress or livejournal, then you can put basically anything you want to on it, and control who else gets to post or comment on it.

These CAPS blogs are provided to us by the Motley Fools for free. Your post's connection to investing was thin at best, and it's their right to remove any post or comment that they think detracts from the mission.

I run a few blogs myself, and I don't allow all of the comments to appear.

Report this comment
#16) On February 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Mary953 (39.38) wrote:

Dare - If you do not stop defending me, that silly remark will never die.  And all I said was  "Talk is cheap."  That comment is not sluttish nor is it in any way profane.  If anyone believes that it is, I would like to know how.

As for your post, I dislike censorship.  It was over the top for me, but I would not have requested that it be pulled. Had you "warmed to your subject' a bit less, I would have considered it a more relevant satire. Then again, I am unapologetically middle-aged, middle-America, Bible belt.   Consider me a stick-in-the-mud if you wish.  ;-)

Report this comment
#17) On February 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM, AnomaLee (29.23) wrote:

 

Some of your lines were direct attacks to the the fastest/largest growing segment of our country(no pun intended). Considering that most American's are overweight it is likely to offend a "significant portion" or members here.

I thought it was funny, but included content that would be offensive in general.

--- Particularly the parts --- (I automatically insert fatties/whales/elephants because I hate being politically correct) or referring to overweight people as large animals.

Without those and if were less sexually descriptive words I'm sure it would be more acceptable, but it took too much reading to get to your conclusion.

Report this comment
#18) On February 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, DemonDoug (98.73) wrote:

wow.  i can't believe they removed/censored that.  that is complete BS.

Report this comment
#19) On February 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

I thought it was pretty inappropriate for the site, Dare. Although I didn't think it should necessarily be removed (I certainly would not bother to ask that it would be) and can see why some people might find it funny. I'll admit I laughed at parts but then again I amuse easily and often at inappropriate things.. :-)

However the Fool trys to keep this a moderately family friendly environment and I think we all can agree that post was pretty potentially offensive to a lot of women if not outright misognyistic. 

Report this comment
#20) On February 13, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

FWIW I don't believe in censorship either but this isn't a truly public place and the Fool has the right to limit speech as they wish.

Report this comment
#21) On February 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

I will respond to others in due time, but I guess I will punish myself further and respond to givmeabreak first.

Note: I have no intention of causing further arguments between us, but I honestly feel perhaps you don't understand. I will try my best to be respectful.

1) And, I'm not talking about what your fiance thought of your friend's story, I'm talking about what she would say about your post.

I guess I was unclear, but I meant my post and not my friend's story. Although she did find both of them to be hilarious. Also, she went to one of the most conservative Christian colleges probably in the country. So, maybe it's just cause she loves me? Well...

2) I let her sister read it (now goes to the same college), and a friend from Russia (goes to the same college) and both of them thought it was funny. Neither one is in love with me or would have any problem telling me that it was inapporiate. I suspect this is because they know me well enough to know it was a joke.

3) Another way to litmus test that post, is to ask yourself the question: would my mother be embarrassed to read that post and find out I was the author?

Funny you should mention that. I did in fact let my mother read it! Guess what? She asked for a copy she thought it was so funny. My mother and I are both English majors (she also has a degree in Engineering and French), and I also have a degree in Theatre (almost a Master's) as well as a minor in Religion from a Christian college.

As an English and Theatre major I can promise you that there are a number of published novels and broadway/off/off-off-broadway produced plays that are far far FAR more offensive in nature and deal with the subject of sex in a less tasteful way for what I like to call literary Shock Value. If you would like me to submit you a list, I will be more than happy to do so.

That being said...

4) Your post shows that you have low morals and NO CHARACTER.

Again with the judging, but nevertheless I will civilly respond. My post shows nothing about my moral character. When I write, I create a completely new character nearly everytime. I get bored playing the same character, and I feel others would be bored if I simply was the same person all the time in my writing.

But hey! It works for Stephen Colbert (who used to do the Today in God segment on the Daily Show), and he says often morally reprehensible things all the time. Now does that mean Stephen is a godless heathen with zero morals. I seriously doubt it. He is in fact an extremely devout Catholic and a loving father.

5) This site for the most part, I like to think, is filled with folks much more sophisticated than that. It requires more thought.

Perhaps, this is a somewhat fair critique. I like to think, that I make people think with my writing. If you weren't made to think by the end of that blog about the State of our Union, then I don't think you weren't paying attention to my larger point.

Did I have to be offensive or crass to make that point? No. But I choose to. Partly because I am offended by the direction our country is heading, and partly because if I simply state the facts and asks for community opinion like I did in this post it gets all of 5 recs worth of attention and zero answers to my question.

I want people to pay attention! I feel that what I am telling people may wake them up from their apathy, and even if they don't come over to my point of view (we are being stolen from and our government is rapidly becoming too large), then perhaps they will at least examine what they hold to be true and come back with a well-reasoned, well-thought-out response.

One final thought:

6) I will be your moral conscience, b/c you solicited our opinions on the post!

I solictited opinions on censorship and the free flow of ideas (which I may not have made clear either) and I instead got mostly comments as to whether people thought it was funny or not. I am happy to hear some people thought it was funny (always am when I write something meant to be funny...), and I am not the least bit disappointed to find some didn't think it was funny (I expected that, I have other more tame blogs for those ppl).

I don't need you to be my moral conscience. I have my religion, my family, and my church for those things. But if you insist on trying to better someone you know basically nothing about by being judgmental, then I am not one to stand in your way.

Peace,

Dare

Report this comment
#22) On February 13, 2009 at 6:16 PM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

RonChapmanJr,

I tend agree with you. That being said I still think TMF is one of the best places on the web for finding different points of view on just about any subject that effects our wallets. It hurts my head to read the Yahoo Finance main article titles....

oregonrogue,

Thanks for you kind words and the work you do in Iraq.

JibJabs,

I tested it out on women before I posted it because I thought maybe only men would find it funny. I was happily wrong. But this comment is funny coming from a guy whose name is JibJabs:

Deeper down, I was ashamed to be laughing as I think you should be for having posted that blog.

I remain unashamed...

Option1307,

Thanks man. Happy to have you as a loyal reader. And yes, I do see why TMF took it down. What shocked me was that they would take it down, not so much why.

eldemonio,

Dude you are really funny. Are you trying to dethrone  motleyanimal as the King of One-Liners cause that one gives him a run for his money?

ricoy5,

Well, I seem to have a decent amount of support on the subject, but I understand those who don't support it. I'm just not sure that means it should be removed. My point about removing religious comments because they might offend someone still stands in light of your argument.

Hodarius,

See above comments.

Mary953,

You are a stick in the mud. Just kidding. It's funny cause my best friend likes to use that phrase. It's a good one. Actually, if I were actually concerned about offending anyone with this blog it was you. I appreciate your critique as it comes from a literary perspective. I will attempt to warm up to my subjects more as you suggest in the future. I pleased to hear that you simply found it over the top and worthy of removal, of course, as a fellow reader I am sure that you have seen far more offensive material hailed as a classic. Toni Morrison comes to mind...

AnomaLee,

You may be right. I could have used more inuendo and been less forward as I have been in the past...but that wasn't the character that came out this time. I hope that it wasn't removed for being politically incorrect though...that would concern me.

DemonDoug,

You have basically sum-up my entire point. Why censor it? Sure, it may offend some people. It might offend a lot of people, but does that make censorship alright? I obviously don't think so, or I would not have posted this blog today. And if people don't like something they can stop reading it after the first line that insults them...it's not that hard to move your mouse pointer over the X button and left click.

Tastylunch,

I am fully aware that The Fool has the LEGAL right to remove any material for any reason they determine. I guess, my point is that I was shocked to see it happen. This has always seemed like a place that promoted the free flow of information much more than T.V. or radio and even the majority of the internet. My point is simply when you make someone the judge of what can and can not be said, then you are limiting the free flow of ideas...which seems like the opposite of everything TMF stands for. After all, it's all about community intelligence, right? Maybe you would argue that my blog had no intelligence (I would disagree), but shouldn't the people reading it be allowed to decide for themselves?

Respectfully to all,

Dare

Report this comment
#23) On February 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Mary953 (39.38) wrote:

I believe I suggested that you warm to your analogy a bit less and as to authors who were unappreciated by their public, you could choose to consider yourself in league with Mark Twain's Huck Finn, Swift's Modest Proposal, or Larry Flynt's Penthouse.  Two out of three are classics. 

Librarians try not to judge for others, and writers listen in a different way to words written by other writers.  I stopped writing satire, or as an 18th century writer, or a Southern redneck good ole girl because it was confusing enough not to be worth the hassle.  Easier just to write as me and save the fiction for other outlets.  I am not offended because I know you are a writer taking artistic license and using a broad (no pun intended) comedic brush.  If that had not been the case, I would have been offended.  Friends don't let friends write themselves into trouble.

Report this comment
#24) On February 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM, lenri (79.81) wrote:

Hey Dare

LOL.

I believe that your fear that it was removed for politically correct reasons probably has merit. If you were a thin woman writing a lampoon about disgusting fat balding men it would still be on MF.

Next time just give us admirers of your satirical genius a link to read your posts elsewhere whenever you are in a creative mood. Then all of the self-righteous pisspots can keep their moral preachings to themselves.

In the meantime I am adding you and Mary to my fav bloggers list.

God love ya!

Report this comment
#25) On February 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM, tramagli (< 20) wrote:

Sarcasm and humor and NOT universally appreciated! I laughed so hard, people came to see if I was alright

Report this comment
#26) On February 13, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Mary953 (39.38) wrote:

I think I just got a totally undeserved backlash of kindness. Thanks Lenri. I left something for you to check out just in case you have ever wanted to take a hammer to your computer. You will find it here - http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=104833&t=01001811806742328892#commentsForm

Report this comment
#27) On February 13, 2009 at 7:58 PM, tramagli (< 20) wrote:

Sarcasm and humor and NOT universally appreciated! I laughed so hard, people came to see if I was alright

Report this comment
#28) On February 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

I am happy they took the post down. It was innapropriate and irrelevant to investing. There is a time and a place for everything, and the place for that post was not here. If people want to see me talk about my views on sex and theology, there is a place where I do that on the web, but there is no need for me to do that here or mix my separate online personas.

TMF has shown restraint in not trying to censor relevant posts, particularly posts critical of TMF. That is admirable.

Come on people, this is an investing site. Random stuff is okay, but there are limits. Show some self-restraint.

Report this comment
#29) On February 13, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

DaretothREdux

I  understand your POV although I don't entriely agree with it. I think the Fool is more interested in the free flow of investing ideas than societal/political ones. As for being surprised, I guess you haven't been here long enough to have seen it happen before. Xthecritic had it happen to him as well.

I think there are kind of unwritten social rules we all follow without realizing it. I really don't think this is about political correctness.Chances are you would have not told this joke to a bunch of elementary school children, at a funeral, at women's rights meeting or at a church social. Yet you probably would have not thought thought it restrictive because you know those are two places that this sort of joke would/could likely be considered rude.

The Fool is trying to be kind of like an investing church. Welcoming to all people of differing temperments, backgrounds etc who want to learn about investing. There are poeple from a variety of income brackets and backgrounds here, including several young teenagers. In order to foster that environment  the Fool (as long as I've been here) has promoted civil and respectful but honest discussions.I think we all can agree that your blogwhile amusing wasn't very polite ;-) and certainly could be seen as insensitive by someone who doesn't know you (and may match some of what you described).

So I can see why the Fool did what they did although it may have not been what I would have.

While I certainly understand why you are upset, I do think there is more to this just censorship. That's all I meant

I'm not sure there is a "right" answer in this as both sides have legitimate points. It what it is.

Report this comment
#30) On February 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, vriguy (80.65) wrote:

I was not offended but I think you could have expressed the same sentiments without being crude. I have no doubt you are a very smart guy and fully capable of making the point without offending anyone.

Report this comment
#31) On February 13, 2009 at 9:11 PM, givmeabreak (29.72) wrote:

I know I am in the wrong for judging you, b/c I am not perfect, but your definition of Christian is far from my understanding of it. 

What version of "Christianity" do you follow that can possibly find your post acceptable? What pastor/preacher/priest would not have MAJOR problems with it?

I am just stunned that you can call yourself (and your wife) Christian and not see the problems with your post. I'm sure her college would be proud of you both.

Report this comment
#32) On February 13, 2009 at 9:58 PM, FleaBagger (32.74) wrote:

Lots of my classmates at my very conservative Christian college were not very devout Christians, but I think this case is more a matter of very poor judgment. I agree that the post was funny. I agree with EDI, however, that it was inappropriate for this site. There are people who would like to allow their children to come to TMF and learn about investing, and this is not what TMF wants them to have to worry about.

I remember Hollywood Dan used to want to be allowed to post more risque material. Same old story. I'm sorry he left, and I wish they would have more Duke of Wall Street videos, but I can see why TMF would want to keep the sexually explicit content to a minimum. I agree with them, too.

And you are right, and we are right, and all is right, is right as right can be!

Report this comment
#33) On February 14, 2009 at 1:09 AM, SuperPicks (29.72) wrote:

hah!

that was awesome.  great writing. 

Report this comment
#34) On February 14, 2009 at 2:37 AM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

I just spent like half an hour responding to everyone who I have not responded to with clear well-thought out arguments and about three pages of text and when I went to post I learned that I wasn't signed in...I hit the back button and it's all gone...

...bummer. If I feel so compeled (unlike right now) I will try and retype what was lost, hopefully I can remember most of it.

Report this comment
#35) On February 14, 2009 at 3:52 AM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

Alright...I'll try again. I may get to half, but here I go.

lenri,

Thanks! It's always good to have another loyal reader, and it's posts like this one that usually get me few new ones. I would write them either way, but it's still encourgaing to know I have support along with dissent.

tramagli,

Between you and lenri those are possibly the two best compliments I have ever recieved on CAPS. Thank you very much. I'm very glad you enjoyed it.

EverydayInvestor,

Nice to have such a heavy-hitter chime in on my blog. I must respectfully disagree with you though, at least partly. My blog may have been innapropriate and offensive but in no way was it irrelevant to investing. I wrote more before but long story short, my blogs are about politics and politics effects everything in this country. Do you invest in a vacuum stock market? If so, please let us know where that is located because I am sure we would all like to trade their with you. For the rest of us who live in this country the government and economic policy is hugely important. Even TMF sends out political blogs, I believe on of the most reced blogs ever (over 300+) was in support of the bailout! We will see if those ppl feel the same way in few years.

Also, are you advocate we remove BravoBevo's post that are Christian sermons and have nothing to do with investing? If so, I want you to come and and say it so that givemeabreak come after you for a change ;)

Tastylunch,

I probably wrote a page and a half last time in response to you. Alright here goes...

Your argument basically boils down to a sociological reason for me to be polite and to do my best not to offend people. Different societies have had different rules throughout time. In 18th Cent. France the only way to gain respect was to tear down others in your social circle. I don't have to follow the rules of American society just because it's polite...and if TMF is as you say:

Welcoming to all people of differing temperments, backgrounds etc who want to learn about investing. There are poeple from a variety of income brackets and backgrounds here, including several young teenagers...

Then shouldn't they also be welcoming to those who are crude, rude, and offensive? And this argument is just ridiculous:

The Fool is trying to be kind of like an investing church.

You can't have a church without a god. What exactly is TMF's God? Money? Wealth? Which of those gods would demand that I never insult anyone?

There was more before but I don't feel like writing it all again. Instead, I will give you the argument that I would not be able to beat:

TMF is a website that makes money from advertisers and people's paid subscribtions to newsletters, etc. My blog offended your clients. My blog put TMF in danger of losing money. Maybe money really is The Fool's God? And TMF was perfectly within its right to remove my blog because they felt it was in the best interest of the company (after I assume a few ppl complained).

I can't beat that arguement. I can only counter with that fact that it is still censorship! And you are against it for the same reasons that I am. That being said I am in TMF's house and I must play by their rules (that doesn't mean I can't complain about the rules though!).

So, from now on I will do my best to link all blogs that I think are overly offensive to a google docs with an Adult content like warning. I like TMF and I don't want to hurt their business simply because I enjoy blogging in sometimes crude ways ;-)

But please, please, please, don't try to make it out as if there are ethical or moralistic reasons for me not to have posted (spare the children!) because it's nonsense in a world (the internet) without a real God to steer morality.

vriguy,

Short and to the point. You are correct my friend. I could have edited my blog to make it unoffensive but that wasn't the character that emerged when I was writing this one. I have other blogs though if that is more along the lines of your taste.

givmeabreak,

What do you want from me, man? Shall I quote the Bible to you: judge not least you be judge by your father in heaven. Do you want to test my theological knowledge as some sort of litmus test to my faith? Are you trying to save my soul? You can stop, that's God's job brother. Unless, perhaps, you are the return of Jesus and without sin? If so, then feel free to stone me because I am not worthy to stand in your presence.

So which is it? Are you a sinner like me or a saint? Which commandment exactly are you claiming I have broken? Do you think Jesus never insulted anyone? Do you think Jesus was never sarcastic? Do you feel that perhaps God doesn't have a sense of humor about his creation of sex? I think sex is hilarious, it's universal and something all people have in common no matter what language or creed. I'm sorry if you don't find the humor, but I am willing to bet God loves a good joke. Laughter is born from love when directed at something instead of someone.

I created a character to make people laugh. You can laugh at what he says as much as who he is. The character is no more me than when I played Sunny in the musical Grease. In real life you would probably find me very civil and pleasent to be around. As an actor and a writer the characters I create are not me! The great Christian fiction writer Dostoyevsky created a Godless character in Svidragalov in Crime and Punishment are you suggesting that he was no different than the characters he created? He must have had multiple personality disorder to create so many dynamic characters with such different morals and ethics and beliefs.

You are right about one thing though. I have no doubt that the college where my soon to be wife attended would not have looked favorably upon this writing. In fact, they censor Comedy Central from their campus cable network. They also don't allow dancing! And they don't allow alcohol (even in moderation) or cigarettes. I choose not to live up to their standards, for those are the standards of men and not the standards of God.

The "Christianity" I practice is one founded on love and forgiveness that has thrown off the mantle of sacrifice for our sins because of the death of Christ, the living Son of God, on the Cross as the ultimate sacrifice. It doesn't forbid me from acting/writing even the most crude things, especially when the point I am promoting is freedom and equality. If you are offended by what I say then you may never see what I am honestly promoting. I don't feel that political correctness or being polite for the sake of not offending people is the way I can bring that message to people. Sometimes you have to rude and in people's faces, especailly when the stakes are so high.

FleaBagger,

Are you unitarian? LOL (and I don't mean that to offend you, especailly if you actually are) but this comment made me think of that:

you are right, and we are right, and all is right, is right as right can be!

SuperPicks,

FINALLY! Once again I come to you...hopefully I wont lost all this this time and I didn't leave too much of my first post out...

Thanks. (I don't really have anything else for you.)

In Love, In Truth, and with Respect to All,

Dare

Report this comment
#36) On February 14, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

DaretothREdux

doh sorry you lost your response, I hate it when CAPS blogs eats mine. That must ahve taken forever to write over.I suually copy and pastemy long responses from a web email account to avoid this problem (if that helps)

I think you got my point now. :-)

It is censorship and it is business.To be honest they allow us more latitude of free speech than most other sites I've been to.

It is what it is. I think your new plan is a good compromise.

Report this comment
#37) On February 15, 2009 at 12:17 AM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

DaretotheRedux - I read (or attempted to read) your story. I found nothing about politics in it. Just a bunch of crude crap about sex. While politics is relevant to investing, sexual metaphors for politics are not. And don't complain about me misreading what you wrote--material that is not easily understood and couched in multiple metaphors is not appropriate to a blog.

I fail to see what is wrong with segregating subjects. When I have met a few people from TMF in person I have not told stories like yours. Why would I do so when anyone could see it? 

Oh and yeah, I don't think proselyzing is appropriate for TMF ... that being said, I see TMF's wisdom in being careful what they censor/delete and only getting rid of things that clearly offend. Some guy writing about Christianity / atheism / whatever on his blog is fine; but I would have no problem if they censored someone bringing that up all the time in comments on others' blogs.

To quote myself, 'defining a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable is as difficult as defining the boundary between cup and bowl.'

Report this comment
#38) On February 18, 2009 at 2:04 AM, BigFatBEAR (30.06) wrote:

Good thoughts here. I'm glad to see that this post is still here, and that you've linked your original piece that hosted externally.

That said, I didn't really laugh or get much out of it.

I can sort of relate to your thoughts on censorship - I posted a blog with low/zero investing value back in December, and wondered if it would be taken down. I came right out and stated from the outset that it was mostly about music. I later decided that while I enjoy including media in my posts, I'd better not post anything until I have something valuable to contribute to the community. Better to not waste people's time and resources.

Now don't get me wrong, comedy is valuable, but comedy at the expense of "overweight" women is cheap. Do you want to be known as cheap?

Likewise, the music I posted may be of value to some, but offered no clear value to the investment community (other than a tiny blurb about USO) and garnered 2 measley recs after my own. Do I want to be known as off-topic and low-value? No - I want to be revered for my skills (getting there) and due diligence (maybe someday).

I like what Red Forman (the Dad from That 70s Show) said to Eric after ... "Son, there's a time and a place for everything."

-BFB

Report this comment
#39) On February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM, StarWitchDoctor (98.43) wrote:

keep it up, as my father used to say (sternly) ! :-).

FOS

Report this comment
#40) On February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM, StarWitchDoctor (98.43) wrote:

keep it up, as my father used to say (sternly) ! :-).

FOS

Report this comment
#41) On February 28, 2009 at 8:21 AM, jszoke01 (25.86) wrote:

Dare - please don't stop blogging, and if you're blogging elsewhere, please post the site.

Report this comment
#42) On February 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, StarWitchDoctor (98.43) wrote:

Congress, we dont want your fat chick.

Report this comment
#43) On February 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mary953 (39.38) wrote:

Dare -

 "Actually, if I were actually concerned about offending anyone with this blog it was you. I appreciate your critique as it comes from a literary perspective."

Consider me not offended, but certainly worried.  I find that you disappeared without a forwarding address!  I do understand that the standards of Hollywood and the standards of the Motley Fool are going to be different.  You have very different audiences. But where did you go?

I miss your satires.  I check each day to see if you have written anything more.  I was attacked.  I came back in comments, then in blogs and you supported me - a support that I needed.  I know you are still around because I do see your comments.  I would appreciate seeing your satires.  If you are under suspension, can you use your other account to at least drop me a comment on one of my blogs to let me know that?  I would then be able to at least go to bat for you. 

Dare, you are a friend.  You are an excellent writer.  You DO have a fan base and I know that you have other friends, friends that have more than just an audience appreciation for you.  I know, as well as any, the feeling of putting yourself out there in the form of your writing and getting attacked.  It is one thing to say you need a thicker skin.  It is another entirely to be under attack and realize what it feels like.  Been there, cannot in all good conscience, say the words that are so easy to say and so hard to do.

There is another and altogether wonderful possibility.  Are you busy planning a wedding or perhaps on a honeymoon?  Finishing up your masters or helping your fiancee/wife finish a degree?  Preparing to move to a teaching position?  Working on a screenplay or perhaps you are pouring yourself into some work of interest that will give you a start in the literary field?  Maybe you are studying David's theses and corresponding with him as he writes from Spain now instead of Qatar. Perhaps you are learning Technical Analysis and preparing to start a nest egg to give you the chance to live your dream.  I hope your silence is for one of these reasons.  If so, just add a comment to your friends that you will be back, but that life is hectic and you are okay.  We will all be reassured and happy for you. 

All the best,

Mary

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement