I've got a funny story, here it goes: Earlier today I wrote a negative review of Fahrenheit 451and expressed my dislike for Bradbury himself. Oh what glee I had when I found it had been (gasp!) censored right off this site! You people are funny, and I'm just bathing in the irony of this situation. Thanks once more ya crazy Bradbury savants/retarded hypocrites. You sure do hate censorship......

Perhaps we should define censorship.

If some self-righteous pseudo-intellectual crusader for stupidity spraypaints the graffiti equivalent of a temper tantrum on the side of my house and I paint over it, I hardly call that censorship.

It's always a little strange to come late to these little dustups. Once Dandelion does her thing, I'm always left scratching me head about what went on. I'm sure the message needed deleting but, perhaps, if there was some kind of archive to send them to, we could see for ourselves.

As for the subject of censorship, no one has a right to have their postings, er, posted. It's a public welcome forum but not a public forum. Got it? We're guests. We should behave as such. Don't like it, create your own site. Doesn't cost a thing to have your own blog. Create one and publish away.

One more point: though this site is an unabashed fan site, I believe there's room for informed disagreement. I, for one, don't think everything Bradbury has ever written is the bees knees. (I've stated before I believe his poetry to be his weakest area. I'm sure I won't be "censored" for stating the same. But if I'm rude about it, or attack Bradbury personally with no basis, then I deserve to have my postings removed. It's called politeness. Hardley censorship.)

Pete

Dear Bradbury smells:

The fact that your little rant above was posted indicates that the site has no problem with posting criticism of Bradbury.

Since I didn't see your original posting, but have seen the type of postings that have been deleted in the past, and see the lack of maturity, substance, or class in your posting above; I have to surmise that your deleted posting included sexually crude remarks or vulgarity. I've never seen anything else deleted from this site.

If you want something posted at a Bradbury site, then you need to present something reasonably close to being worthy of someone else's time. Not all deletions are censorship -- sometimes they are matters of taste, relevance and maturity. I write letters to the editor pretty frequently (newspapers). Sometimes they get published, sometimes they don't. It typically has nothing to do with censorship.

If you want to be published, give us something worth reading.

By the way, this is the official Bradbury site. They have both the right and the responsibility to set standards. If this site degrades to a juvenile, vulgar ranting post, the "real" Bradbury devotees will vanish.

Also, unless you personally know Bradbury, what could possibly be your grounds for disliking him personally?


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-25-2003).]

To All You Fine Postings Above::

Did any read my 'double' posting...waywards?

Dandelion asked we do not respond to goofy postings. Perhaps it makes it easier for her to delete the offensive ones. Otherwise, may loose good postings, like probably some on this here thread.

I agree it is wise in general not to reply to the "waywards" as you say...not simply so these topics can easily be deleted, but because a response -- *any* response -- tends only to encourage that sort of posting.

Does the first post in this thread deserve to be scrubbed off the board? I'll leave the final answer to dandelion. But I found the post did--in it's own way--raise an important issue relevant to Bradbury's writing...one that pterran and Mr. Dark made short work of.

I hate to admit it, but Bradburysmells has a point.

I didn't get the chance to read his 'review' of Farenheit 451, but I'm annoyed that it has been taken off the board (of course I know this is well within the rights of the board administrators, as it clearly states in the registration). But my annoyance is directed mainly to the fact that we should not censor even those whose views are sickening to our own. And calls to 'ignore' posts fosters nothing but ignorance, in my opinion.

Let this poster have his say, and let us defend our opinions of the work. I myself agree with earlier posts about Bradbury's poetry (it does not touch me in the same way as say e.e cummings or William Blake). Bradburysmells is correct on one major point. Farenheit 451 was a book about the dangers of censorship and the importance of hearing many disparate voices other than the government sanctioned media.

Please, I beg of you, allow these types of posts, and the replies to them. Do not become the arbitrators of what is, and what is not suitable. A good point, well argued is always welcome. But a bad point, inexpertly argued can be just as enlightening.

I support the posting of all "real" articulated opinions -- whether by Bradbury fans or by persons who are not too keen on him. But I absolutely oppose crude, degrading "rants" on a site dedicated to one of our great living writers. If someone has an opinion about his writing, or life, or impact, then please post. But this is not a site for intellectual vandalism and juvenile crudity. These kinds of things are not published in the press or in scholarly journals or reviews, and I see no reason why they should be posted here.

Were Nard and I the only two here to see the original post? Basically, his so-called "review" of "Fahrenheit 451" called it the "worst book ever written" and went on to question the mental state and sexual orientation of the author. All I'll say about the second post is everyone here should thank their lucky stars Nard notified me immediately and I was able to take care of it to spare you all from even having to see it--you didn't miss a thing! You did make some good points above--for the record, I'm not keen on his poetry, either, but will read anything under his name--so I'll leave this thread, but generally responding to "trolls" creates difficulties, just one of which is complicating the decision of what to delete.

No problem with the deletion here. A good point was made above that such a submission would be rejected by a print publication and not considered censorship. No, if Bradburysmells would care to re-submit his/her review of F451 - and I'd be willing to listen to the personally disparaging remarks if they had some bearing on the work itself and was based on fact - then I'm sure the ever-wise Dandelion might see fit to have the post remain, leaving it open for rebuttal.

So I disagree with the point that deleting an offensive post is somehow censorship. And that wasn't quite what was depicted in F-451.

Pete

Well, let me first say, I'm am ashamed to have joined this board. I know the administrators of boards have at their whim the control of what should and should not be seen, but on a Bradbury board? Dear god. I'm upset and severely annoyed. For me Bradbury does many great things, his short stories are excellent, his novels good too, but the most important lesson I take from Bradbury is a message of freedom of expression. Alas, I see none on this board.

"spare you all from even having to see it--you didn't miss a thing!" -- Dandelion

Well, thankyou for taking all the hassle out of my decision making. Next, maybe you can give me a list of books that 'are worth' reading. We can compile an 'official' list and then make sure all the others 'not good enough' are unavailable to everyone.

"'These kinds of things are not published in the press or in scholarly
journals or reviews, and I see no reason why they should be posted here'."

And I would never expect 'these kinds of things' to be published in such journals. As we all know the press has bias and an economic model to uphold. It will not defy it's target audience with possibly (and I say possibly as I will never be able to see the post)radical or upsetting viewpoints.

In sumation, I will never post or read this board again, and that is upsetting. I will continue to read Bradbury novels, short stories, and sometimes think they are terrible. I will continue to have free will and the 'right' to decide for myself without self-appointed arbiters of taste and morality monkeying my decisions.

You see what happened here, don't you? By banning Bradburysmells post, removing it, you fostered more interest than would have ever been gained by leaving the original post. A small opinon became the subject of debate because you took my freedom to choose away.

Shame on all you moderators.

I'm going to Michalemoore.com and read the posts that are not banned because the moderator does not like them, or agree with their sentiment. Maybe there is still some freedom left after all.

Former Bradbury Message board poster
Frankanger

dandelion, I'm grateful for the job you do.

Anyone who's been around this board long enough wasn't fooled for a second by that cry of "censorship". I'm not in the habit of responding to trolls, but I didn't see the offending post and thus had judged the original post to this thread on its own merits and decided to reply.

I like to think I could tell when a thread is headed for the trash can, but if not I won't be offended if my words get sacrificed for the greater good.

As for certain posters who have taken their toys and gone home...y a w n. It all goes back to my original statement about defining censorship. *Of course* there limits to expression. You can't yell FIRE in a theater when there is none, you can't libel or slander, you can't incite violence, you can't swear in a G rated movie, you can't spray paint graffiti on the side of my house...the list goes on...

[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 01-26-2003).]

frankanger::

If frankanger wishes to ...read the basic message in question, it would be nice if he had e-mail and ...I'd e -mail it to you.

Otherwise, as a friend of Mr. Bradbury, let me put it this way...

frankanger: How about if I called your mother or father...or your very best friend.... disgusting names, referred to them in hideous sexual terms with animals included, etc? Think about it!!

Furthermore, how would you feel if we post that up on the board for general discussion... Wouldn't bother you? Would you get mad?

Or... would you like to either:
A) strangle me
B) remove it in disgust.

You decide.

Dandelion did....

Contrary to the above claim, the deletion of a crude posting did not arouse my interest in it. I don't come here for juvenile rants and gutter language. It's a literary site and should (contrary to the above rant on the vested interest of media) maintain some kind of standards.

There are tons of both porn sites and juvenile rant sites available. To allow this to become one more of them diminishes the site. There is no effort to post only "Positive Mental Attitude" fluff opinions on Bradbury or his work. But it is a site set up to honor and explore a major literary figure.

The effort to maintain high intellectual standards on this site is no more censorship than it is when a newspaper tries to maintain quality writing on it's Op-Ed pages.

I think Dandelion has done a very good job moderating the site. It must sometimes seem like a thankless task.

Um...thanks, Nard...I guess. Words and terminology failed me as how to even approach the topic of attempting to describe the infamous and short-lived "gopher" post without unduly ushering an untoward, unnecessary, and unwelcome effluvium of grossness into the atmosphere, but this gives people an idea of what they, uh, "missed." As to cries of outrage, I remember them being much longer, louder, and more indignant when we didn't have a moderator and such things stayed on the board for weeks. A lot more people threatened to leave over things NOT being removed, than being removed. In some older threads, replies accumulated and remained after the offensive post was removed. In newer threads, I removed any replies even making reference to the offensive posters so as not to give them a place on the board or the satisfaction of having made their disgraceful mark on it. No one has EVER been censored for an opinion, period. For instance, the post referencing sending Mr. Bradbury hate mail (a practice which can be illegal depending on the contents of said mail) is still up, as are all those called upon to be removed for being "just plain silly," as well as the "borderline, but not bad enough" posts by trolls. To be removed, something has to be EXTREMELY bad, as can be evidenced not only by veterans of this board, but by anyone willing to read as many earlier messages as they might wish.

[This message has been edited by dandelion (edited 01-26-2003).]