Perceptionally, if words are misquoted, taken out of context, if someone asks, gets answered, then abuses the privellege either as jealous, ignorant or just plane stubborn idiocy, why would you bother?
Surely there is a greater truth in not being small minded, perhaps naive, or ill informed, or personally perceptionally deceived on only what is wrong and never right with the world.
Does yahoo when answers or questions can not be deleted by either the questioner or anwerer when set in concrete have an eternity for denial to those who seek and the relativity is as much based on companies ahead of the their time having privelleged information where ignoramaces prove their vanity?
Is abuse the only reason for removal upon reporting, or during an election campaign is the victimization of key individuals seen as desirable to free speach by yahoo?
Surely choice is as much about the right to deny as to give?
2007-11-15
13:15:12
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Psychology