Of course. I mostly only threw it out there as a means to counter Persephone’s technical argument of choice being an absolute with a technical argument of choice’s opposite being an absolute– Wasn’t quite expecting to have to explain it. Kinda fun in a way.

Lets first examine the claim that the Herald is “notoriously left leaning”. This publication has frequently been critical of furrys, of she-male clubs, BDSM, pedophiles, age-players, diaperfurs and basically every other extreme sexual perversion that is embraced as “normal” by the progressive left.

Furthermore, it was previously highly critical of the economic dependence SL had on the gambling market.

It also has regularly published business articles about the SL economy, criticizing Linden Lab’s bungling and self-sabotaging policies along with their consistent faking of economic data in order to paint rosy pictures (Jessica Holyoke being the primary author of most of these). The Herald has been consistently pro-business and pro-consumer, but anti-socialist big government. Doesn’t sound very left wing to me.

The Herald also seems to embrace a strong ethic of preferring individual rights and Constitutional protections versus heavy handed big government by Linden Lab.

Where the Herald doesn’t agree with traditional “conservatism” is that it seems to disagree with the sort of “war on e-terrorism” attitudes typical of neocons today, and also with the lab’s lack of due process gestapo state tactics which can only be described as neofascist. Being opposed to fascism and neoconservatism doesn’t make one “left wing”.

The fact is, that , however much you may try to deny it, Linden Lab is “The Man” in SL, a de facto state in the world they created, the sovereign creator of a virtual polity. Standing up for the rights of the people, (whether you call them “customers” or “users” or “residents” or “citizens” is immaterial in this) does not make one “left wing” any more than Tea Party members standing up to left fasco-socialism of Obamacare is left wing.

I realize that to fascist neocon types like yourself, if someone isn’t 100% for a war on e-terror that permbans people you don’t like to a Gitmo of nonexistence without any due process, that that someone may seem like a crazy liberal left winger, but I’d have to say that idea of “left wing” went out somewhere around the time of Nero or Ghengis Khan.

As for “effective communication” with the company, sweetie (and I use this term rather loosely), I for one tried for years to communicate effectively with the Lab. So did Woodbury. So have many others. It is a Sisyphusian task and a waste of time, because they generally won’t communicate back except in form letters that say absolutely nothing, and in the rare occasion that you actually do start to build some bridges with them, as Woodbury was doing right up until the day they were banned, like a snake, LL will turn around and bite you and shut you down for no apparent reason, but if you investigate it usually turns on one or more of their staff corruptly getting you shut down to protect some side business of theirs, or to shut you up about their own nefarious criminal activities.

We have far more experience in dealing with the Lab than you imagine. Your pollyannish blind faith in their inherent goodness belies either a naivete of newbish ignorance, or else the kool-aid sipping drone of a Linden insider.

I made several attempts to come up with an answer that actually makes sense and every single one turned into a narcisstic name-dropping fest of a who is who of philosopic history.

We could take this to the extent the herald would have to buy additional storage solely because of our discussion.

Even so, the question, whether there is true original choice or not in life would remain unanswered.

But what I can say from experience is, taking ordinary questions of every day life to a philosophical level is in the majority of cases the educated flavor of escaping a simple truth by drowning it in an ocean of complexity.

Of course. Anyone that disagrees with you must be crazy, a troll, a Linden, or just “plain goofy.” What other explanation would there be for not realizing your brilliance?

I’m not sure what I said that you felt was altering your opinion. In the quote you provided above this statement, I was merely stating my own position.

“You call it defending yourself, even though you did come in and land the first blow,”

Actually, the author of this article landed the first blow. I just responded to it in comments open to the public. The Alphaville Herald is notorious for a very left-leaning, one-sided narrative on criticisms of Linden Labs. While, as a customer of Linden Labs, I’m generally in agreement with many of the complaints themselves, I’m not in agreement over the demonizing attitude toward the company. And I think that attitude is undermining effective communication with them on how to fix problems and generally undermining progress for everyone. So, I’m thinking it might be time to challenge it and provide another way of looking at things.

“what I am saying is not only are you being a voice of dissent, you’re almost completely disragarding any view by the looks of it that doesn’t immediately fit yours.”

And so are those that disagree with me. We are equally disregarding each other here. You seem to think this is behavior unique to myself.

Consider this. I made fun of Wayfinder for suggesting I might be a Linden in disguise, an absurd accusation. I told him sarcastically, “Everyone that disagrees with you is a Linden. What other explanation could there be for someone not sharing your viewpoint, unless they’re part of that evil conspiracy called Linden Labs?”

He responds with, “Well, another possibility is they’re just plain goofy. ;D”

Perhaps I am unyielding in the defense of my position and dismissive of other opinions. But, come on, who hasn’t been?

“That’s basically, in a manner, stating that I should either enjoy the way LL does things or gtfo. No matter how much you may try to refute this now, that is the way you said it yesterday.”

If that’s the way you understood what I said, then I was misunderstood. Hopefully, we’ve cleared that up.

“I’m trying to intelligently refute this.”

And hopefully you understand now what I’m trying to do. Yes, I’m poking holes in a whole perspective. I may not be convincing to a majority of people here, but that does not deter me in the least from expressing myself.

“lol, I feel attacked in no way, honestly.”

Good. I’ve no intention of doing so.