I didn't say ALL the posts have been like this. There are good persons posting here, and we have the added benefit of visits by Sam and Patrick. But I agree with the public school analogy. This site does not represent the last refuge of the 1st amendment. This is a site with a specified purpose. I think there has been a real degradation in the last six months or so; and it's easy to identify posters who seem obsessed with crudely and arrogantly bashing particular persons, ideologies, nations, etc. Let's study and celebrate Bradbury. Again, this does not mean everyone should or has to agree. But it should be related to the subject, and civility ought to be maintained.

I agree that the postings on this site have deteriorated badly in the last few months. It has reached the point where most postings seem to relate to personal political and religious beliefs, and very few have to do with Ray Bradbury, and his life and work, which is what I thought we were here to discuss and celebrate. Very sad.

When I found this site a couple of years back I was so excited because I love Bradbury and his stories so much. The idea that there were other people out there who felt the same way and wanted to discuss him was thrilling. I've really enjoyed most of the posts and Bradbury related topics that have come up here. Lately though, it just hasn't been as much fun to visit. I am not interested in discussing politics here or world matters, unless they relate to Bradbury stories. I am not saying those things are not worth discussing, I just don't think this is the place. I don't think it's censorship to delete a post that has nothing to do with the stated topic of the site, particularly if it contains obscenities or other inflammatory remarks. I would like to see this site stick to Bradbury and his work. I'm not saying everyone has to agree on everything; some of my favorite posts have been when people shared their different opinions or ideas about stories. I just don't want to wade through all the nastiness any more to get to "the good stuff."

Well...
...how ''academic'' do we all want this site to be, per Bradbury studies and discussion?

A great deal of my perception about life has been colored to one extent or another by Ray's influence in my life. So I feel I have some very different opinions about many things that would not be there if I didn't collide with Ray Bradbury when I was very young.

I may have skipped off the 'Bradbury waters' into way different currents, and I feel this is worth discussing, even if only in "Ruled Paper"... tho a few times it falls into other categories as well, like 'Resources', for instance.

But the point is...that there are just a bunch of out and out hooligans that come busting the furniture up here.

'''We need some safeguards in place, not just another category to run to...!!'''

Because of the rather poor efforts of Michael to argue potentially good points, and because of the way these points were enriched with plain swear words, I too think that this should be deleated.

Cheers, Translator

I concur in your disappointment with RB's reaction to Michael Moore's use of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the identification of his superb movie exposing the Bush Administration in all its horrific glory. I believe that MM truly used it as an indication of his esteem for RB's work, insight, and bravery. It's usage by MM, of course, relates to the surrealistic domination of the Bush Administration over all things "democratic" in the world by their lies, theft, and coercion. I hope that RB reconsiders his assertion and supports MM's offering to U.S. voters.

"Anti-American" is a strange way to describe citizens who utilize their First Amendment Rights in order to criticize the Bush Administration. Those who LEGALLY use such methods are, in my opinion, good citizens. We should all be questioning our leaders constantly.

Dandelion? The people have spoken.

Cooger&Dark

[This message has been edited by Cooger&Dark (edited 06-17-2004).]

What is up with Ray? He is upset with Michael Moore? Seems to me, if anything, Micheal is bringing more attention to Farenheit 451. It is Ray who should be ashamed by working with Mel Gibson - a man most strongly against any of the ideas of freedom of thought that Ray supposedly espouses in Farenheit 451. Allowing Mel to be any part of the film project means to me that Ray has completely sold out and does not belive any of the things he wrote. I can't believe Ray just ruined one of my all time favorite books.

Utterly disappointed that such a maverick and champion of anti-censorship would respond in a political fashion, rather than be honored that an older work will be revived to a whole new generation. Ricky

Moore's effort was NEVER to honor Bradbury's work. Moore's work is egregiously political. Bradbury has been clear and consistent that he was unhappy with Moore's use of the title. As has been said, it was not illegal for Moore to use it, but it was classless.

Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-17-2004).]

Just an observation.

A few of the recent posters sound remarkably alike. It's almost like the same person is purposely fanning the fire with a Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde response...whichever personna keeps people worked up.

[This message has been edited by Green Shadow (edited 06-18-2004).]

Green Shadow:

That thought passed my mind this morning. Hmm!! ?

Good ol' Vic and good ol' Rick -- coincidence? I think not.

Translator,

See? There are things we can agree with.

Best,

Pete