Loading Notifications...

Trump permanently banned from Twitter

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Chive Talkin':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8CQuIRNzho& 

I think this classes as compersion.

He's very happy 😂

 waitout 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

56,000 tweets over his term apparently. Nearly 40 a day average. With those little fingers.

 mondite 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

Damn if he got so upset about a little thing like losing the election how is he going to feel now.

Thoughts and prayers to the orange buffoon.

 Jmacquarrie 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

He's tried to get back on with at least 3 other accounts and Twitter has banned those as well.

I doubt he'll be able to stop himself from trying, he needs the attention.

 Jmacquarrie 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

From the statement Twitter released regards the ban:

"Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021."

I'd guess there will be a much heavier security presence than there was on Wednesday. 

 lorentz 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

Exactly the problem with Trump's reign of terror... Attention has fuelled the monster these last 4+ years. It's way beyond time to deprive him of the oxygen that the fires he deliberately starts need to burn. It's the only way to deal with spoilt petulant children after all. #ignoretrump

1
 derryclimbs 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

The only downside to this is now not being able to pop onto the giant tangerine's account to have the occasional laugh when bored.

OK, its stopping the perpetration of domestic terrorism, riling up an aggressive right-wing mob and the incitement of violence.... on the balance I guess that's for the better.

Post edited at 11:16
 deepsoup 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> I doubt he'll be able to stop himself from trying, he needs the attention.

How long before he turns up on here? ;-)

 stp 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

The social media bans are interesting and complicated. On the one hand I think he should be treated the same as everyone else on there. But then again Twitter and Facebook are privately owned websites and the owners can ban who they want whenever they want.

I'm not sure whether the outcome will be good or bad. I think he already has accounts on other social networks that champion free speech like Gab and Parler. Those are the places that other banned individuals have gone including many from the far right. So he can still connect with his supporters and rally them to whatever he wants to. And pushing those of similar views and away from everyone else means their views will go unopposed and leads to an even greater fracturing of society than the mainstream social networks are causing.

Trump Jnr's comments about free speech and Chinese communism are ignorant and absurd. He misses the fact the Trump is not restricted by the government and can still say whatever he likes and the only restrictions are on a couple of other privately owned web sites.

 flatlandrich76 09 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

That would be fun! We can ask him what he's done on grit and, of course, nobody knows more about grit than him so we might finally get a definitive answer to what grade TPS is. 

 mondite 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> I'm not sure whether the outcome will be good or bad. I think he already has accounts on other social networks that champion free speech like Gab and Parler.

They dont though. Parler, for example, has banned multiple left wing users who were amusing themselves trolling the maganuts.

Their only interest in "free speech" is for them to be allowed to say what they want without reprecussion but they then lose interest when it comes to those who disagree with them.

 Roadrunner6 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

There's no free speech protection in private settings.

Protected free speech doesn't include organizing violent uprisings. This has all gone through SCOTUS before.

I think twitter and others are concerned about liability with murderous uprisings planned from their sites.

 deepsoup 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> On the one hand I think he should be treated the same as everyone else on there. But then again Twitter and Facebook are privately owned websites and the owners can ban who they want whenever they want.

Am I misunderstanding you here?  He wasn't treated unduly harshly because he's the president, quite the reverse.  If he had been treated the same as everyone else on there he would have already been permanently banned ages ago like erm..  Katie Hopkins for example.

Post edited at 12:42
 stp 09 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

My point, or rather question, was whether it is a good idea to ban people from those platforms when they will just go somewhere else. If rightwingers are all on platform A and the left are on platform B that seems like a serious fracturing of society considering how much social media is used these days. At least if it is mixed people can respond to, say Trump's lies.

However having read it bit more a more cynical picture emerges. Seems like Biden is keen on regulating the big tech companies more so it might be a kind of way signalling that they don't need to be regulated.

Even Google and Apple are jumping on the bandwagon by banning the Parler app from their web stores. I thought the Parler guy made a good point:

“Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler,” Matze said. “Therefor (sic) by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for,” he wrote. “Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-parler/google-suspends-parler-social-networking-app-from-play-store-apple-gives-24-hour-warning-idUSKBN29D34N

3
 Roadrunner6 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

I don't think you get this.

The sites were used to plan an event to kill cops. They specifically said let's kill cops.

1. Private companies can basically do what they want.

2. Free speech protections do not include inciting violence - which this clearly did.

3. Liability. Yes they can be held liable.

So yes they can ban them. 74 million people voted for Trump. You want to use technology to organize murderous uprisings then make your own social media platforms and technology to host them.

It's laughable. Trump just tried to introduce a law removing their protections. Then gets upset when they moderate what's on their platforms. Basically 'put what I want up.' He's the one advocating for state controlled tech.  

Post edited at 14:35
1
 Jmacquarrie 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

Pretty sure Apple, Google et al are asking Parler to moderate their platform under the terms of service they agreed to. 

Removal of posts calling for bloodshed and trying to organise violence seems a fair ask in this case.

1
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> I doubt he'll be able to stop himself from trying, he needs the attention.

He could always do something old school like holding a press conference or talking to the ‘Mainstream Media’.  Of course, there is a risk of nasty questions.

 Fat Bumbly2 09 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

......So overgraded, you know that, I know that. Crooked Hillary says it’s 5a but what does she know....

 Jmacquarrie 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

He never answers those anyway so I doubt that's the problem. 

Can't rage tweet while taking a dump anymore is probably high on his list of grievances.

The man is a disgrace.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Undergraded, it is actually bigly E15 and we did the first ascent so I am/was the bestest climber in the world. Honnold held my ropes, not that I put any gear in of course, 'cos gear is for pussies and losers.

 The Lemming 09 Jan 2021
 The Lemming 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> My point, or rather question, was whether it is a good idea to ban people from those platforms when they will just go somewhere else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7paBcllck&

 Darron 09 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> How long before he turns up on here? ;-)

Jon Stewart will sort him no worries.

 Fat Bumbly2 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Climbing is easy, I grab it by the jugs

 deepsoup 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

When you're a wad they just let you do it.

Post edited at 20:55
In reply to stp:

>  I thought the Parler guy made a good point:

...
> Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for

That's a silly point, not a good one.  All the Parler traffic is passing through their systems - they can (and probably should) track it; iPhones connect to many disparate cellular networks, and Apple can't (or, at least, certainly shouldn't) track their traffic.  That someone from Parler made that false comparison suggests a certain level of mendacity in the organization.

 stp 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

There are songs which incite people to kill cops, like Ice T's famous Cop Killer, and you can find them on Youtube. Seems strange Google allow those then, no?

Personally I think it's absurd to expect the creators of a messaging app to be held accountable for what people use them for. It's like making a gun shop liable for a murder committed with a gun that was bought from their store.

Apps are simply tools that can be used for good or bad and the responsibility is with those who use the app not the app's creators.

I agree that of course Apple and Google can do whatever they like because they're private companies. I was just pointing the hypocrisy and suggesting what their true motivations might be.

6
 stp 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Niall_H:

So private companies should be responsible for policing their customers then?

And who do you think should pay for that technology?

 Roadrunner6 10 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

Well that's why we have section 230.

Without it we would have a very different internet. So if Trump et al do want it repealed they'd find their speech curtailed very rapidly. Any forum/social media page would have to be very heavily moderated. And we know conservatives would be furious about it - everyone would be.

 Jmacquarrie 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Niall_H:

Couldn't the FBI host Parler now everyone else has pulled out? It's basically where people go to incriminate themselves anyway.

In reply to stp:

The idea of a moderation policy is hardly new, and certainly doesn't require novel technology.

You seem not to have commented on how silly the Parler to iPhone comparison was, though.  Any especial reason?

Post edited at 23:01
In reply to Roadrunner6:

This is what puzzles me; why does Trump want section 230 repealed anyway? If it were he'd be banned immediately.

jcm

 Roadrunner6 10 Jan 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I don't think he realizes what it means. He hates free speech in the press because he can't sue US papers, he'll target UK papers printing the same things. I reckon he just wants to be able to sue twitter whenever someone upsets him, but as you say he'd be banned immediately and would be furious.

Re his supporters, when they say repeal it, and you explain what that means they then don't want it repealed.

 Roadrunner6 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

Stripe (who process donations) has cut him off and will no longer process supporters donations.

Talk about hitting him where it hurts, $$ and Twitter..

He's violated their ToCs.

https://newyorknewstimes.com/stripe-stops-payment-processing-on-trump-campaign-website/75985/

Post edited at 23:58
 mondite 11 Jan 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> This is what puzzles me; why does Trump want section 230 repealed anyway?

5d chess. Although mere mortals cant see it it will be revealed to be genius at a future date.

Of course the alternative is its pigeon chess and he wants it repealed because someone told him it would upset all those nasty companies who put warnings on his lies.

 Kimono 11 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> How long before he turns up on here? ;-)

Exactly who did you think Num Num was?

In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> Can't rage tweet while taking a dump anymore is probably high on his list of grievances.

I'm surmising; that's the reason he seems to have disappeared: he's stuck on the po halfway through a complete evacuation. Nothing can happen without that cathartic release when he presses "Tweet"... 

In reply to stp:

> Personally I think it's absurd to expect the creators of a messaging app to be held accountable for what people use them for. It's like making a gun shop liable for a murder committed with a gun that was bought from their store.

It's not the creators, it's the people selling advertising off the back of users content. And can you see the difference between a WhatsApp message and a tweet? 

> Apps are simply tools that can be used for good or bad and the responsibility is with those who use the app not the app's creators.

No responsibility at all? Tweet whatever you like? Upload snuff movies to YouTube? No editorial control, no user agreement, no responsibility, total free for all, and make as much money as you like off the ads? Sounds great. 

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

So does 230 not protect both Google and Parler from conversations that take place on Parler and other platforms?

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to The Lemming:


Excellent as always and pretty much sums up my views. Particularly I agree that it is very complex and far from obvious answer what should or should not be done.

 Jmacquarrie 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

This is about companies not wanting to host a site that refuses to moderate calls for violence. Admittedly given the state of the discourse on Parler it would be like trying to install smoke detectors in hell.

Also as I have mentioned before businesses are entitled to remove their services if you break the terms you agreed to. 

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> No responsibility at all? Tweet whatever you like? Upload snuff movies to YouTube? No editorial control, no user agreement, no responsibility, total free for all, and make as much money as you like off the ads? Sounds great. 

Well it's a complex issue and there are no easy answers. Snuff movies are an extreme case and the vast majority of people banned from Youtube and other social networks are not banned because of uploading illegal material.

If you really want private companies to be the arbiters of what people do and say online, and who can say it and who cannot, then in my view that is a move away from democracy and step to what I would call corporate fascism. They are accountable to no one but themselves.

 elsewhere 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> Well it's a complex issue and there are no easy answers. Snuff movies are an extreme case and the vast majority of people banned from Youtube and other social networks are not banned because of uploading illegal material.

> If you really want private companies to be the arbiters of what people do and say online, and who can say it and who cannot, then in my view that is a move away from democracy and step to what I would call corporate fascism. They are accountable to no one but themselves.

In a democracy a commercial business has the right to decide what to publish. Hence you don't see my drivel on the front page of the Guardian, during the Channel 4 news or as an appendix tacked onto the end of a Harry Potter book. In a democracy I don't see a way round letting commercial companies decide their own policies (usually for commercial reasons such as keep advertisers happy).

Post edited at 10:50
 mondite 11 Jan 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> In a democracy I don't see a way round letting commercial companies decide their own policies (usually for commercial reasons such as keep advertisers happy).

The question is when does the business switch over to being the public square which the main social media companies are close to being.

At this stage leaving it to their own whims seems somewhat dangerous.

 elsewhere 11 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

> The question is when does the business switch over to being the public square which the main social media companies are close to being.

That would be an argument for breaking up near monopolies such as Twitter or Facebook. I'm not sure what good that would do as everybody wants to be on the biggest network. I can name Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and UKC. I have no idea who is snapping at their respective heels.

> At this stage leaving it to their own whims seems somewhat dangerous.

Do we have greater plurality of published views than ever before? You no longer need to be a journalist, professional pundit, parliamentarian or billionaire to be heard.

Post edited at 11:21
 mondite 11 Jan 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> That would be an argument for breaking up near monopolies such as Twitter or Facebook. I'm not sure what good that would do as everybody wants to be on the biggest network.

Yes which then gives the alternative of regulating those monopolies instead. In theory there are some alternative social network designs which get round this but so far they havent gained traction.

> Do we have greater plurality of published views than ever before? You no longer need to be a journalist, professional pundit, parliamentarian or billionaire to be heard.

Until the billionaire decides to silence you and manipulate the feed to help them get elected president.

Yes we have upgraded from speakers corner to speakers world but in doing so we have put the control in who can stand there in the hands of a few not necessarily disinterested parties.

Its a difficult issue to answer and I certainly dont have the answers but simply going private companies can do as they want seems somewhat flawed. They are regulated and controlled on a range of different areas so I am not sure this should be any different considerering how much controlling what people get to see can influence everything else.

 Big Bruva 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

"I think it's possible to be somewhere inbetween. Like most things, it's more complex than that."

How long before Jonathon Pie becomes a pariah on UKC? He seems a little to keen to try and understand different points of view!

4
 cb294 11 Jan 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> In a democracy a commercial business has the right to decide what to publish. Hence you don't see my drivel on the front page of the Guardian...

The problem here is different. The tech companies explicitly DENY that they are publisher, according to them that would be the users, while they style themselves as something akin to telephone networks.

This is obviously bullshit, but so far they got away with it.

The reason that they now respond is that they are afraid that the egregious nature of Trump's incitement might wake up politicians to that problem. Ironically, Trump wants exactly that, but for the usual self serving but self defeating reasons.

Even more ironically, banning Trump PROVES that they already have editorial powers over content, there is no difference in deciding what cannot be published as deciding what can, and e.g. Zuckerberg should be held responsible and go to jail for every piece of hate speech, mobbing, or revenge porn he facilitates through his service.

CB

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> This is about companies not wanting to host a site that refuses to moderate calls for violence.

Well possibly but I think it would be naive to assume they always tell the truth.

I haven't used Parler and they've been taken down by their hosting company Amazon just last night I believe.

It seems that the main reason for their existence is to provide platforms that promote free speech. Gab.com are pretty clear on this and from what I've seen Parler are the same. If they can live up to this then maybe they'll provide good alternatives to the tech giant monopoly we currently have.

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> In a democracy I don't see a way round letting commercial companies decide their own policies (usually for commercial reasons such as keep advertisers happy).

The alternative would be a decentralized, open source technology. These already exist but they don't have the huge resources the the tech giants have and so aren't well known or used.

The reason these companies have got so far is not because of superior technology but because they've been funded for years to offer their services completely free, get huge swathes of the population on them, and then turn them into profit making empires by selling people's data etc.

They're not and never have been intended for free speech and the betterment of society.

 elsewhere 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> The alternative would be a decentralized, open source technology. These already exist but they don't have the huge resources the the tech giants have and so aren't well known or used.

> The reason these companies have got so far is not because of superior technology but because they've been funded for years to offer their services completely free, get huge swathes of the population on them, and then turn them into profit making empires by selling people's data etc.

> They're not and never have been intended for free speech and the betterment of society.

All true.

 mutt 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> So private companies should be responsible for policing their customers then?

> And who do you think should pay for that technology

what a bloody stupid statement. The answer is of course that they social networks should pay. If they want to provide a service in a civilised country they should play by the rules. The rules are how we stand up for our values. Our values for instance are that we do not tolerate Facism. 

 mondite 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> It seems that the main reason for their existence is to provide platforms that promote free speech. Gab.com are pretty clear on this and from what I've seen Parler are the same. If they can live up to this

they dont. Parler before they got nuked did enforce rules. They were a safe space for the hard right and not overly keen on letting others come and play.

As is often the case the "free speech" meant the right for them to say what they want without reprecussions or indeed the right to criticise.

 Big Bruva 11 Jan 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> In a democracy a commercial business has the right to decide what to publish. 

Newspapers in the UK can generally decide what to publish because there is a very diverse range of opinions put out there by numerous outlets. Broadcasting is very much more regulated. Internet media is a separate case again because of the formation of quasi-monopolies. Should they be able to silence people whose views they disagree with, or who criticise their actions? I don't think they should get free reign just because they are 'commercial business'.

Trump was banned because people interpreted his Tweets as inciting violence, and that seems like a fair enough reason. But I agree with Jonathon Pie (video link in an stp post above) that it might end up being counter-productive, simply stoking the conspiracy theories about left-wing control of the state

Post edited at 12:09
 mondite 11 Jan 2021
In reply to cb294:

> Even more ironically, banning Trump PROVES that they already have editorial powers over content, there is no difference in deciding what cannot be published as deciding what can, and e.g. Zuckerberg should be held responsible and go to jail for every piece of hate speech, mobbing, or revenge porn he facilitates through his service.

The problem here is the impact across the board. What counts as facilliation eg not taking down in x hours or whatever?

Just think how long this site would remain open if Alan and co were looking at a prison sentence if I posted something tw*ttish and it wasnt deleted before you saw it. Everything would be premoderated or simply given up on.

The history of 230 gives an idea of the problems.

In one case an ISP carried out no moderation at all and so when sued got to use the distributor line. In another the ISP did carry out some moderation and hence were considered to be publishers and so got a hefty bill.

So 230 was designed to try and fix this by giving protection to the one that had at least tried to do the right thing a bit of the time.

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to mutt:

> The answer is of course that they social networks should pay. If they want to provide a service in a civilised country they should play by the rules. The rules are how we stand up for our values.

The thing is I think it's really hard to do. I just read that the phrase 'Storm the Capitol' was used more than 100,000 times in the 30 days before Jan 6 on social media networks including Twitter and Facebook. Should that have been moderated? Did those networks even know about that?

"...the phrase were often associated in viral Twitter threads discussing logistical details on how to enter the building."

It also surprises me that US Intelligence weren't more on the case after that too.

> Our values for instance are that we do not tolerate Facism. 

Well that's a clear cut value I agree with. I'm surprised I haven't seen that stated in mainstream media anywhere.

 Jmacquarrie 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

Gab and Parler, the 2 sites self proclaimed fascists frequent are bastions of free speech?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

 Roadrunner6 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> Gab and Parler, the 2 sites self proclaimed fascists frequent are bastions of free speech?

> Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

There's plenty of examples of liberals being banned from Parler - which I'm sure comes as a shock to you..

https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-users/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844

 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

Not sure why the fact fascists use them would imply they're are not set up for free speech. I imagine the far right are just pissed off as everyone else about getting banned from the corporate networks.

1
 cb294 11 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

IMO premoderation is essential, even if it is labour intensive. Newspapers also have to moderate their letters to the editor.

If this means twitter or facebook shrink massively or die entirely, who cares?

IMO a return to classic content generation and distribution would actually be a good thing.

CB

edit: putting illegal content up in the first place should already count as facilitation

Post edited at 15:11
 Jmacquarrie 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

Because fascists only care about their free speech, not everyone else's. 

Fascists only want to debate you to waste your time and give themselves legitimacy, once they get enough power to silence you they will, history has enough examples.

Who runs Gab and Parler?

 Jmacquarrie 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yes that was the point I was making. So no it's not a surprise to me.

Post edited at 15:21
 stp 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Jmacquarrie:

Gab is run by a right wing Christian guy, Andrew Torba. Don't know if he's a fascist or more libertarian. I suspect the latter from reading a bit of his stuff and watching a video. He comes across as sincerely wanting to promote free speech.

My assumption is that the right and far right don't all share the same beliefs and there's probably quite a mix of ideologies in there including but not limited to fascism.

The conundrum is should fascists be allowed free speech? And if so could that even be enforced? I think legislating against free speech could be extremely difficult to do and lead to possibly dangerous unintended consequences.

Is it better to allow free speech for everyone and then openly criticise those ideas we disagree with?

I think this is a complicated issue without an easy answer.

 redjerry 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

I think one of the key lessons of this is the extent to which monopoly or near-monopoly power exists in so many areas of the online world.  
I'm happy that Trump or Parler are losing their platforms, but I'm not happy about how it has happened. 
 

 Jmacquarrie 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

You're ignoring the fact that these platforms have freedom of speech but not freedom to demand a private business gives them a platform for that speech.

There is a separate issue here that some of the speech used is illegal so the point of freedom of speech is moot anyway. Planing to murder people is illegal even if you do it online rather than down the pub. 

And finally no, fascists do not deserve freedom of speech, for the same reason as I've just outlined above regards the murdering. If you debate with a fascist they're just borrowing your audience.

Post edited at 16:09
 mutt 11 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

well I happen to know that it isn't hard to do. Twitter/facebook and the rest can scrape our data at full rate. 10Gb/s maybe. Trigger terms, shove matching messages into a queue down to 100M/s, Trigger on IP address, shove matching message into a queue at 10M/s. auto moderate using AI or context sensitive language analysis. Network analysis at 5K/s.

The US intelligence service don't perform this on the facist neo nazi's because all US agency heads are political appointees. Trump sacks anyone who steps out of line and replaces them with toady's.

Don't hang yourself defending free speech. There is no such thing. Ignorance is dangerous. That is a lesson of history.

In reply to Chive Talkin':

I feel perversely sad that I've lost part of my daily entertainment. Of course, there lies the problem, a lot of us indulged him by treating him as entertainment, the platforms treated him as a reliable source of advertising revenue, meanwhile people were really falling for his shit and he was amassing an ever growing true following...

 aln 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Chive Talkin':

Great. Let's let him fade away, stop talking about him, let him drift into disinterest and obscurity. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.