Cigars removed from online thesauri.

**Aaron** · 03-07-2006, 08:27 PM

Forgive the newbie post, but I just joined in order to bring to cigar smoker's attention to a post from my blog: Cigars Banned From Online Thesaurus

I'll be back later. I'm active on another cigar forum and look forward to contributing/learning more here.

**illilli** · 03-07-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Aaron

Forgive the newbie post, but I just joined in order to bring to cigar smoker's attention to a post from my blog: Cigars Banned From Online Thesaurus

I'll be back later. I'm active on another cigar forum and look forward to contributing/learning more here.

Aaron, I hope you are here to talk about cigars and cigar issues and NOT to promote your far-right political agenda. I am a Republlican, but I am not interested in being linked to your right-wing political forum. That blog was so short that you could have cut and paste it's content here without the plug for your website.

I guess I am on Asshat alert or something, but I'd like to hear more about your cigar smoking habits before I hear about your political aspirings or left-wing conspiracy theorys; even if they D
DO involve cigars.

So, if you are here to enjoy sharing and learning about cigars, I extend a warm welcome. Time will tell if you here for otherwise.

**Aaron** · 03-07-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by illilli

Aaron, I hope you are here to talk about cigars and cigar issues and NOT to promote your far-right political agenda. I am a Republlican, but I am not interested in being linked to your right-wing political forum. That blog was so short that you could have cut and paste it's content here without the plug for your website.

I guess I am on Asshat alert or something, but I'd like to hear more about your cigar smoking habits before I hear about your political aspirings or left-wing conspiracy theorys; even if they D
DO involve cigars.

So, if you are here to enjoy sharing and learning about cigars, I extend a warm welcome. Time will tell if you here for otherwise.

Sorry. My go-to smokes are a CAO Brazilia Gol! and La Aroma de Cuba Corona Minors.

I've been herfing for 14 months now.

The issue about the ban of cigar from online thesauri wasn't a theory. How would you explain it?

Hope to keep my distance from certain fleshtoned double-hemi-globular headcoverings.

Thanks for the welcome.

**SuperChuck** · 03-08-2006, 10:16 AM

Um, wouldn't "removed" imply that it was there in the first place?

Seems like you tried to do a search, couldn't find cigar, and made a huge assumption that some left-wing gestapo is marching around the Internet removing cigar from every online source...

I thought "censorship is okay" was more of a right-wing thing...
(Partisan politics confuses me)

**Aaron** · 03-08-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

Um, wouldn't "removed" imply that it was there in the first place?

Seems like you tried to do a search, couldn't find cigar, and made a huge assumption that some left-wing gestapo is marching around the Internet removing cigar from every online source...

I thought "censorship is okay" was more of a right-wing thing...
(Partisan politics confuses me)

There's an old joke about a conservative being a liberal who got mugged and a libertarian being a conservative who got censored.

Censorship is to the left. Liberty is to the right. Case in point for cigar smokers: Calabasas. Next week it becomes illegal to smoke OUTDOORS. Great example of liberalism run amok.

Name one Waco under John Ashcroft.

**jaewing** · 03-08-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Aaron

There's an old joke about a conservative being a liberal who got mugged and a libertarian being a conservative who got censored.

Censorship is to the left. Liberty is to the right. Case in point for cigar smokers: Calabasas. Next week it becomes illegal to smoke OUTDOORS. Great example of liberalism run amok.

Name one Waco under John Ashcroft.

The only objectionable censorship is that which is done by government. When private companies who host on-line dictonaries or thesaurus (or ultra-rightwing bloggers) decide to not print certain material or words they do not like there is nothing to complain about.

Your complaint is on one hand exercising your Free Speech rights while attempting to deny it to another person/private company on the other.

Welcome to the board but please refrain from political discussion and self-serving posts directing people to your website.

**illilli** · 03-08-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by jaewing

Welcome to the board but please refrain from political discussion and self-serving posts directing people to your website.

Well, since Hex moved this thread to the "Politics" section, I think is OK to have a political discussion.

When discussing the differences between State-sponsored censorship and Private censorship, all we have to do is look at our wonderful liberal media. They sway public opinion by printing either blatant lies OR by omitting facts OR by providing a slant to the news; all in the name of freedom of speech. Now, a liberal will point to Fox News and say, "oh yeah?, you guys do it too!" I find this so funny because, while Fox News is conservative, it is one against how many liberal news agencies?? The liberals object to us having ONE little voice in the sea of tree-hugging?

This may be a hi-jack of your original intent Aaron, sorry.

Edited to correct a misquoted name.

**jaewing** · 03-08-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by illilli

Well, since Hex moved this thread to the "Politics" section, I think is OK to have a political discussion.

When discussing the differences between State-sponsored censorship and Private censorship, all we have to do is look at our wonderful liberal media. They sway public opinion by printing either blatant lies OR by omitting facts OR by providing a slant to the news; all in the name of freedom of speech. Now, a liberal will point to Fox News and say, "oh yeah?, you guys do it too!" I find this so funny because, while Fox News is conservative, it is one against how many liberal news agencies?? The liberals object to us having ONE little voice in the sea of tree-hugging?

This may be a hi-jack of your original intent Aaron, sorry.

Edited to correct a misquoted name.

I agree totally!

**FlowerBasketExpress2005** · 03-08-2006, 08:08 PM

How about e-mailing the people and asking if they could add an entry for cigar cause you didn't find one. Then come back and tell us what happens. If they add it back you can take your tinfoil hat off.

**illilli** · 03-08-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by FlowerBasketExpress2005

How about e-mailing the people and asking if they could add an entry for cigar cause you didn't find one. Then come back and tell us what happens. If they add it back you can take your tinfoil hat off.

Now wait just a minute Flower Basket! Aaron has PROOF! He said it is NOT a theory, so he must have proof. I say let's see his proof before we test for lack of proof.

Some old guy that lived back in the old days said the earth was the center of the solar system and the proof was right before everyone's eyes, but his PROOF wasn't really based on scientific fact, but rather on literal observation. I'm not smart enough to have had any of those philosphy classes like I'm sure Aaron has, but I would bet money that there is a term for Scientific proof and proof that is based on things that appear to be true based on observation and speculation.

(Disclaimer: I am partially teasing Aaron and partially seriously busting his balls. The truth is Aaron that I actually read quite a bit of information on your website. You wrote some interesting thought-provoking articles in your blog. In truth, if we asked those websites why they removed smoking-related information from their thesauri, they would probably say that children use these resources and they don't want to encourage curiosity through idle discovery (or some other such gibberish). This is simply a product of our "moral majority", which blushes shamelessly over an exposed breast on national TV while 69% of the male population surfs porn every night on the internet. I scream, "HYPROCRISY!" Show me an 8-year old boy who hasn't found a way to see a bare breast on his own and I'll show you a boy destined to be singing show-tunes in a broadway musical!)

**prophetic_joe** · 03-08-2006, 09:36 PM

I expected to see words like “stogie”, “stick”, “Cuban” and others. I thought that maybe it might have been a temporary database glitch on thesaurus.com, so I Googled for other online thesauri. Good luck trying to find “cigar”, “cigarette” or “stogie” in any online thesaurus!

Just out of curiousity what kind of dumbass needs a thesaurus to find synonym for cigar anyway? Seems like anyone who smokes them would learn these relatively fast and anyone who doesn't and wants to know can also find them fairly fast. Doesn't really seem like a super serious issue to me.

Now the whole Roswell, Area 51, and JFK assassination coverups? Those are different stories all togather.

**FlowerBasketExpress2005** · 03-10-2006, 08:47 PM

Yeah really now, "stick" would be a slang sounding term not really a straight out synonym. I have also heard Stogie be used as either slang for cigar or meaning a cheaper cigar which wouldn't be a synonym.

Heck does anyone have a paper thesaurus that actually has cigar in it?

**illilli** · 03-22-2006, 05:03 AM

I've seen liberal bias with my own eyes on a daily basis. I could pick up certain papers or watch some specific news stations and write down many examples. There are times when the media swings to the conservative side like right after 9-11. Then the whole media was dripping in conservative goodness (out of fear mostly I guess).

Arguments of this type don't really serve any purpose; it's a He-Said, She-said situation. I would personally rather have a liberal media expressing their Freedom of Speech rights than to have a state-controlled media spouting political propaganda.

**SuperChuck** · 03-22-2006, 09:56 AM

I've always thought the American media is a little on the conservative side, myself, but that may just be the hippie in me.

Actually, I mostly just find the American media to be wishywashy. For every real news story reported, there are 10 stories of kitties rescued from trees. This used to be the kind of nonsense the local news would report because, realistically, it's hard to fill half an hour with real local news.

I've always found the American media to be completely Amero-centric. Unless it directly affects us, we don't report it. I remember being in London several years ago and the top story in the news was these ex-slaves from South Africa roaming around, killing white farmers. I remember thinking this news was never reported in the US.

I've resorted to TiVo-ing BBC World every morning and watching that while the gf is getting dressed. I'm still amazed that the headlines on BBC are almost never seen on CNN...

</threadjack>

**cigar no baka** · 03-22-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

There is NO liberal media bias. Neo-cons should stop perpetuating this complete fallacy.

Very good article debunking the myth of a liberal bias in the media, and showing the existance of exactly the opposite.

Horseshit, I see it every day and have for the 30 years I have been watching mass media.

**Shagaroo** · 03-22-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

There is no liberal bias in the media because the liberal media said so!

Fixed your typo.......

**cigar no baka** · 03-22-2006, 07:28 PM

The tipping point for me in seeing there is a huge liberal bias was in 1994, during the elections. After results started to come in, Tom Brokaw described the voters as having a "national temper tantrum". Spoke volumes to me, he sees voters that vote conservative as children who cannot control themselves. Just listen to the words they use, and it becomes clear where their biases lie.

**Shagaroo** · 03-22-2006, 08:31 PM

Except for the fact they called Gore the winner at 7:48 pm EST, you know, when polls were still open and it could have a negative impact on the outcome of the election. Unless you actually expect people to believe Fox calling Bush the winner at 2:16 am EST, 7 hours and 16 minutes AFTER the polls CLOSED is much more damaging to the election process.

You wouldn't happen to be from Crawford, TX would you?

EDIT: That should be 6 hours and 16 minutes after the Panhandle polls closed.

**Lopaka** · 03-22-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

I don't do typos

C'mon, open your eyes. The media, in general, is owned by right wing conservatives.

I think Ted Turner would be very pissed if he read that.

Here is the evidence that says the media is liberal bias. When they finally report the TRUTH on what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I'll believe you. And don't tell me "we're not doing anything but losing" is the truth.

Another piece of evidence that most of the media has a liberal agenda is CNN never says, President Bush. It's the President or Mr. Bush. The only time you ever hear they say President Bush is when something negative is happening to him. Who runs that agenda?

However, I agree, I would like to see the media start to actually reporting the news. Because when Bill was in office, it was the same B.S. for him also.

**Lopaka** · 03-22-2006, 09:32 PM

Here's my thought. Al Gore lost, not from Florida or any of that B.S. No, anyone who loses his HOME STATE, yes you read that right, Al Gore lost Tennessee to GW, should lose the election. If Al Gore won his own home state, he would have had enough votes that Flordia wouldn't have been a key state.