Gordon Roy Parker''s specious claims of censorship over his coversation-destroying screeds
Paul Robinson
which are off topic, lies, fraud and/or of no value, while making it
impossible for other people to speak. He is incapable of understanding
that he adds nothing to the conversation except his explicit desire to
destroy it.
We need only look at a Supreme Court decision to find out exactly why
people moved elsewhere, to a place he is not permitted to speak. It is
not because anyone fears debating him - every time he is challenged to a
debate, he has run away screaming, his pusillanimous yellow spine
glistening like the slug he is, with his cowardly tail tucked between
his legs - but because he is incapable of civilized debate, turning to
insults and threats when he is losing.
The following applies just as much to junk mail as to worthless
commentary of no value, which is the only thing Ray generally has to offer:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to
or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit.
The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle'
into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none
of its vitality. We therefore categorically reject the
argument that a vendor has a right under the
Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material
into the home of another. If this prohibition operates
to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is
that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on
an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives'
outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to
objectionable speech and other sound does not mean
we must be captives everywhere. The asserted right
of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary
of every person's domain."
Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728 May 4, 1970.
Despite his specious claims of being cut off because of some group who
do not want him as a potential competitor - which are untrue, and he
knows that they are intentionally false and misleading - it is because
of his lack of interest in any real debate, but only to contaminate and
pollute any discussion.
He asks the question: should we listen to someone who won't debate in an
"uncensored forum"? Well I have a question: should we listen to someone
who, when multiply requested to prove his claims, continues to refuse to
do so?
When Ray is challenged on the points he makes, he is consistently unable
to verify or prove them. All he can do is slink away, caught as the
malevolent liar and fraud that his tortured soul knows to be, a state
that he is unable to face. He is incapable of civilized conversation,
of polite discourse, and of proving any claims he makes. This is why he
posts unsubstantiated claims of unproven and unprovable incidents,
because he figures that he need not substantiate that which is too vague
to be of any significance.
Also, note that in many contexts he discusses issues or claims that he
would be incapable of tolerating if that which he says should be imposed
upon others, were to be imposed upon him. This is pure and
unadulterated rank hypocricy of the foulest kind.
Next time Ray makes a comment about anything, just ask the question: can
what he says be verified independently? Does he provide evidence to
support his conclusions? Is he willing to verify what he claims? If
not, this should be taken into account on just about everything he says.