: POOF ! "Racaros" thread deleted



Houdini
08-08-12, 06:54 PM
Got my car back...only drove it for 40 minutes or so but the seat no longer rocks back and forth and is still quiet (like before). They replaced "seat adjuster assembly" part number 20903439 with a description of "FRAME 11.419". I'm happy again. I love my dealership and they are very easy to work with but I wish they would tell their techs to look over the car when finished. There are a few greasy fingerprints on my leather seat from when they were removing it. It was easy for me to see. Just looks dirty. I'll pick my battles though...I want to stay on their good side.

They did a great job on the safety recall with the glove compartment (campaign 10292). Mine had to be cut in to and the door replaced. Looks like they did a perfect job. No marks or scratches.

boplaw
08-15-12, 11:31 AM
Nice.

RippyPartsDept
08-15-12, 12:00 PM
huh?

boplaw
08-15-12, 12:09 PM
The thread title misspelled Recaros, but it was a thread about the "uncommon" issues with the $3,400 seats rocking and squeaking.

BI2011ESV
08-15-12, 12:11 PM
Happy my V doesn't have the Recaros.

smackdownCTSV
08-15-12, 12:19 PM
Censorship at it's finest! Brought to you by the Mods and Admin at the CadillacForums! Unfortunately, just because the thread went away, doesn't mean the problems went away as well. There isn't a solid fix for it. Throw in the Ultraview and those are 2 expensive options with problems that have yet to be fixed! Great car, just poorly executed. Poor customer service. Poor dealerships. Cadillac, the new standard of the world! Too bad those shitty standards will make this my last Cadillac and GM.

boplaw
08-15-12, 12:19 PM
Happy my V doesn't have the Recaros.

But....they are so relaxing to sit in and rock that I might just take them out and replace my office chairs.

Kmajecki
08-15-12, 12:20 PM
Mine squeak. Guess Im only the 2nd person to have this issue. When Cadillac ignored our rear diff failures in the V1's werent we able to generate a list of all who had the issue and under what conditions? This sure seems like a cheaper fix than a rear diff. Not sure why they're ignoring this issue as well.

boplaw
08-15-12, 12:20 PM
Censorship at it's finest! Brought to you by the Mods and Admin at the CadillacForums! Unfortunately, just because the thread went away, doesn't mean the problems went away as well. There isn't a solid fix for it. Throw in the Ultraview and those are 2 expensive options with problems that have yet to be fixed! Great car, just poorly executed. Poor customer service. Poor dealerships. Cadillac, the new standard of the world! Too bad those shitty standards will make this my last Cadillac and GM.

Troublemaker.

RippyPartsDept
08-15-12, 12:48 PM
there's a ton of threads about 'rockin' recaros ... there's got to be some other reason why it disappeared

https://www.google.com/#q=recaro+site:cadillacforums.com

look at all the other recaro threads ... why just delete one if you're trying to censor criticism?
that line of logic doesn't make sense

smackdownCTSV
08-15-12, 01:22 PM
The censorship here doesn't make no sense!

Griffin337
08-15-12, 01:28 PM
I can't even remember what my reply to that post was.. But I have that problem along with many others.. But Magically my post was removed WAY before the thread.. I didn't post anything offensive, vulgar or against forum rules. Must have hit a sore spot with the admin.. :) .. Guess the truth hurts..

hulksdaddy
08-15-12, 01:32 PM
It's gone because the thread starter was banned for being a douche. All the posts in it were just collateral damage.

RippyPartsDept
08-15-12, 01:36 PM
oh yeah if your account gets axed all your threads disappear along with your account

if you're familiar with databases you'll understand the technical reasons why

Griffin337
08-15-12, 01:37 PM
Has there ever been a "sign up" list / thread of people with the issues? There HAS to be something we can collectively do to get them to fix our seats!!

thebigjimsho
08-15-12, 01:38 PM
It's gone because the thread starter was banned for being a douche. All the posts in it were just collateral damage.

Yep, and again for this thread...

RippyPartsDept
08-15-12, 01:51 PM
I guess it's another case of 'trolls will be trolls'

dqw1
08-15-12, 02:47 PM
Wait a minute, who got wacked?

boplaw
08-15-12, 03:00 PM
It's gone because the thread starter was banned for being a douche. All the posts in it were just collateral damage.

Hmm, I thought the guy was pretty mild. Can't remember his s/n.

larry arizona
08-15-12, 03:08 PM
Love my Recaros. Noise and rocker free.

RippyPartsDept
08-15-12, 03:38 PM
i didn't see the thread, but possibly it could have been the user's actions in another thread or in PMs that violated site rules calling for a ban

venomns
08-15-12, 03:42 PM
This is a great idea. Why don't we get a sticky up and put up a list of everyone that has had this issue and how many of them have been fixed..... Mine is going in for the first of many i fear dealer stops for the "washers"......



Has there ever been a "sign up" list / thread of people with the issues? There HAS to be something we can collectively do to get them to fix our seats!!

SecretWeapon
08-15-12, 03:48 PM
Who got whacked?

Cadillac Cust Svc
08-15-12, 05:42 PM
This is a great idea. Why don't we get a sticky up and put up a list of everyone that has had this issue and how many of them have been fixed..... Mine is going in for the first of many i fear dealer stops for the "washers"......
For my part, I can definitely keep an eye on any specific thread you may begin specifically for Recaro concerns, and I can document its URL and a running tally of user names for all of you experiencing these frustrations! I can't guarantee a particular action in response to such a list, but I will certainly pass along your concerns up the chain.

And if any of you would ever like me to investigate your individual concerns further, my email is Katie_Lucille@gmexpert.com.

Best,

Katie
Cadillac Customer Service

JimmyH
08-15-12, 06:54 PM
I can't even remember what my reply to that post was.. But I have that problem along with many others.. But Magically my post was removed WAY before the thread.. I didn't post anything offensive, vulgar or against forum rules. Must have hit a sore spot with the admin.. :) .. Guess the truth hurts..

You didn't post anything at all in either of those threads. So is there anything else you would like to lie about?

JimmyH
08-15-12, 07:02 PM
And someone tell me how deleting either of those threads falls under the act of "censorship"?

Censorship is the act of repressing information. There was no information in either of those threads to repress. It was just the rehashing of repeated complaints about Recaro seats. The only post that might be considered new was posted by Houdini. And I have copied it into this thread (it is now the first post of this thread)

larry arizona
08-15-12, 07:15 PM
I do have to agree whinning and it is whinning, does degrade the forum and is not the venue to resolve sour grapes with the dealer or GM. We are all aware of the complaints on the V. Plenty of threads cover it so its not censorship.

Houdini
08-15-12, 08:45 PM
Well this is intoxicating...... I'm going to need you to just go ahead and make me the opening post on every single thread of the V sub forum. Yeaaaah, if you could just do that from now on, that would be great. Mmm'K? Ohh ohh, I almost forgot, could you go ahead and set my post count = Jim's post count +1 (at all times). yeaaahhhhh... thanks!

:)

JimmyH
08-15-12, 08:47 PM
:thumbsup:

boplaw
08-16-12, 08:34 AM
This is a great idea. Why don't we get a sticky up and put up a list of everyone that has had this issue and how many of them have been fixed..... Mine is going in for the first of many i fear dealer stops for the "washers"......



Second.

That way when my dealership tells me that Cadillac engineers tell them there has only been ONE reported case in the whole country I can point to that sticky.

boplaw
08-16-12, 08:47 AM
And someone tell me how deleting either of those threads falls under the act of "censorship"?

Censorship is the act of repressing information. There was no information in either of those threads to repress. It was just the rehashing of repeated complaints about Recaro seats. The only post that might be considered new was posted by Houdini. And I have copied it into this thread (it is now the first post of this thread)

Is that because his seems to be fixed after he has driven it for 40 miles? That's news?

Houdini
08-16-12, 09:23 AM
Well let's not make this a bigger deal than it is. My post is sort of out of context now but the point is after my dealer replaced the frame, it is no longer rocking and still quiet. So in MY CASE, it appears it be fixed (for now). I've driven it much more since that post and I'm still happy. Is that really news? It's relative.....

winstonlv
08-16-12, 09:56 AM
And someone tell me how deleting either of those threads falls under the act of "censorship"?

Censorship is the act of repressing information. There was no information in either of those threads to repress. It was just the rehashing of repeated complaints about Recaro seats. The only post that might be considered new was posted by Houdini. And I have copied it into this thread (it is now the first post of this thread)



Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life.

To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books.

The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated.

Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU.

In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences.

National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action?

There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the time of this writing in Russia). If citizens feel their activities online will be screened by governmental agencies in their country, their inclination to engage in expression will be much less than if their government stays away -- the classic "chilling effect."

"Censorship through consensus" is also a real possibility. There are countries where the adherence to a shared social, though not religious, code is a fact of life. Understanding that entails discerning where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with in a consensus situation.

Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation?

On a different level, the actions and reactions of large corporations to the Internet has to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Some firms have paid search engine companies for preferential placement in particular subject categories when a user submits an online search inquiry. Is the information tainted because someone has paid for it to be "found," or should the standard be that so long as all responsive information is displayed to the user, placement is irrelevant?

Because so many nations of the world are now considering the filtering system known as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selections) as an answer to their concerns, the question of parental controls also must be addressed. In many countries, the state justifies censorship with the claim that it is acting in loco parentis. Such claims, whether interpreted as "state as parent" or "state as Big Brother," are responsible for many of the restrictions on information distribution found today across the world.

Parental claims certainly have a place in the dialogue, but they can cut across meaningful lines of discourse as well. Despite the presence of a widespread and deadly worldwide epidemic (AIDS), there are parents who object to the teaching of safe sex models in public schools. Such objections pose an obvious problem: do their rights as the parents of their own children supercede the rights of all children in a classroom (or library, or online community) to have access to information that could save their lives? The legal precedents, which usually provide clear guidelines in such matters, are mixed here. Courts have ordered operations and vaccinations in the public health interest, but courts have also ruled that religious beliefs are a compelling answer to public concerns. The question is not whether there are legitimate parental claims, but rather at what point is there a public interest that overrides them? Is it only in matters of imminent and life-threatening danger or does it extend beyond that clearly delineated realm?

That question is usually most clearly seen in the restriction on so-called "obscene" or "pornographic" material online. This is probably the most pervasive type of censorship around the world, even though the behavior it seeks to limit is, almost by definition, private and personal in the most fundamental way. "I know it when I see it," a U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said of obscene material. The judge spoke more truth than he realized: different nations across the world have different thresholds for what they consider pornographic material. In some locales, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of pubic hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults.

That last formulation might seem, at first glance to be the most reasonable, but it excludes the biggest current issue in terms of pornographic material: child pornography. People trafficking in such material, even in the United States, have little or no recourse to free speech or free expression claims. Yet even in the United States, there is no uniform age of consent. Those limits are set by the states and they can vary by as much as six years. The same is true for the member states of the European Union; what is legal behavior in one state may be a violation of law in another.

Balancing compelling national interests with compelling individual interests (as well as competing national interests) in the online world is going to be the work of generations. In the past, nations were able to legislatively proscribe certain types of behavior. Those who were affluent enough (or desperate enough) to be in a place where different laws or customs were in effect became refugees or expatriates. But the Internet pushes against national, or even, supranational borders in a way that no medium before it has ever done. The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations.

:bouncy:

boplaw
08-16-12, 10:15 AM
Well let's not make this a bigger deal than it is. My post is sort of out of context now but the point is after my dealer replaced the frame, it is no longer rocking and still quiet. So in MY CASE, it appears it be fixed (for now). I've driven it much more since that post and I'm still happy. Is that really news? It's relative.....

Hey, that brings me hope.

RippyPartsDept
08-16-12, 11:43 AM
Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life.

To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books.

The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated.

Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU.

In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences.

National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action?

There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the time of this writing in Russia). If citizens feel their activities online will be screened by governmental agencies in their country, their inclination to engage in expression will be much less than if their government stays away -- the classic "chilling effect."

"Censorship through consensus" is also a real possibility. There are countries where the adherence to a shared social, though not religious, code is a fact of life. Understanding that entails discerning where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with in a consensus situation.

Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation?

On a different level, the actions and reactions of large corporations to the Internet has to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Some firms have paid search engine companies for preferential placement in particular subject categories when a user submits an online search inquiry. Is the information tainted because someone has paid for it to be "found," or should the standard be that so long as all responsive information is displayed to the user, placement is irrelevant?

Because so many nations of the world are now considering the filtering system known as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selections) as an answer to their concerns, the question of parental controls also must be addressed. In many countries, the state justifies censorship with the claim that it is acting in loco parentis. Such claims, whether interpreted as "state as parent" or "state as Big Brother," are responsible for many of the restrictions on information distribution found today across the world.

Parental claims certainly have a place in the dialogue, but they can cut across meaningful lines of discourse as well. Despite the presence of a widespread and deadly worldwide epidemic (AIDS), there are parents who object to the teaching of safe sex models in public schools. Such objections pose an obvious problem: do their rights as the parents of their own children supercede the rights of all children in a classroom (or library, or online community) to have access to information that could save their lives? The legal precedents, which usually provide clear guidelines in such matters, are mixed here. Courts have ordered operations and vaccinations in the public health interest, but courts have also ruled that religious beliefs are a compelling answer to public concerns. The question is not whether there are legitimate parental claims, but rather at what point is there a public interest that overrides them? Is it only in matters of imminent and life-threatening danger or does it extend beyond that clearly delineated realm?

That question is usually most clearly seen in the restriction on so-called "obscene" or "pornographic" material online. This is probably the most pervasive type of censorship around the world, even though the behavior it seeks to limit is, almost by definition, private and personal in the most fundamental way. "I know it when I see it," a U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said of obscene material. The judge spoke more truth than he realized: different nations across the world have different thresholds for what they consider pornographic material. In some locales, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of pubic hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults.

That last formulation might seem, at first glance to be the most reasonable, but it excludes the biggest current issue in terms of pornographic material: child pornography. People trafficking in such material, even in the United States, have little or no recourse to free speech or free expression claims. Yet even in the United States, there is no uniform age of consent. Those limits are set by the states and they can vary by as much as six years. The same is true for the member states of the European Union; what is legal behavior in one state may be a violation of law in another.

Balancing compelling national interests with compelling individual interests (as well as competing national interests) in the online world is going to be the work of generations. In the past, nations were able to legislatively proscribe certain types of behavior. Those who were affluent enough (or desperate enough) to be in a place where different laws or customs were in effect became refugees or expatriates. But the Internet pushes against national, or even, supranational borders in a way that no medium before it has ever done. The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations.

:bouncy:

Nice copy paste (http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/old-index.html), got anything of your own to add?
...

for what it's worth every successful repair of a 'rockin recaro' has involved the seat frame being replaced as houdini mentioned

it seems that some people just have a hard time getting their dealer to 'play nice'

hulksdaddy
08-16-12, 12:02 PM
blah blah blah.....

:bouncy:

Fixed. :duck:

JimmyH
08-16-12, 02:29 PM
Is that because his seems to be fixed after he has driven it for 40 miles? That's news?

I said "MIGHT BE" considered new. Just because his dealer fixed his problem and yours didn't is no reason to take it out on the forum.

JimmyH
08-16-12, 02:30 PM
Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life.

To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books.

The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated.

Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU.

In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences.

National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action?

There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the time of this writing in Russia). If citizens feel their activities online will be screened by governmental agencies in their country, their inclination to engage in expression will be much less than if their government stays away -- the classic "chilling effect."

"Censorship through consensus" is also a real possibility. There are countries where the adherence to a shared social, though not religious, code is a fact of life. Understanding that entails discerning where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with in a consensus situation.

Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation?

On a different level, the actions and reactions of large corporations to the Internet has to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Some firms have paid search engine companies for preferential placement in particular subject categories when a user submits an online search inquiry. Is the information tainted because someone has paid for it to be "found," or should the standard be that so long as all responsive information is displayed to the user, placement is irrelevant?

Because so many nations of the world are now considering the filtering system known as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selections) as an answer to their concerns, the question of parental controls also must be addressed. In many countries, the state justifies censorship with the claim that it is acting in loco parentis. Such claims, whether interpreted as "state as parent" or "state as Big Brother," are responsible for many of the restrictions on information distribution found today across the world.

Parental claims certainly have a place in the dialogue, but they can cut across meaningful lines of discourse as well. Despite the presence of a widespread and deadly worldwide epidemic (AIDS), there are parents who object to the teaching of safe sex models in public schools. Such objections pose an obvious problem: do their rights as the parents of their own children supercede the rights of all children in a classroom (or library, or online community) to have access to information that could save their lives? The legal precedents, which usually provide clear guidelines in such matters, are mixed here. Courts have ordered operations and vaccinations in the public health interest, but courts have also ruled that religious beliefs are a compelling answer to public concerns. The question is not whether there are legitimate parental claims, but rather at what point is there a public interest that overrides them? Is it only in matters of imminent and life-threatening danger or does it extend beyond that clearly delineated realm?

That question is usually most clearly seen in the restriction on so-called "obscene" or "pornographic" material online. This is probably the most pervasive type of censorship around the world, even though the behavior it seeks to limit is, almost by definition, private and personal in the most fundamental way. "I know it when I see it," a U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said of obscene material. The judge spoke more truth than he realized: different nations across the world have different thresholds for what they consider pornographic material. In some locales, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of pubic hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults.

That last formulation might seem, at first glance to be the most reasonable, but it excludes the biggest current issue in terms of pornographic material: child pornography. People trafficking in such material, even in the United States, have little or no recourse to free speech or free expression claims. Yet even in the United States, there is no uniform age of consent. Those limits are set by the states and they can vary by as much as six years. The same is true for the member states of the European Union; what is legal behavior in one state may be a violation of law in another.

Balancing compelling national interests with compelling individual interests (as well as competing national interests) in the online world is going to be the work of generations. In the past, nations were able to legislatively proscribe certain types of behavior. Those who were affluent enough (or desperate enough) to be in a place where different laws or customs were in effect became refugees or expatriates. But the Internet pushes against national, or even, supranational borders in a way that no medium before it has ever done. The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations.

:bouncy:


um yeah, I am going to read all that :lol:

you guise win. i am a censor :D

Rolex
08-16-12, 09:20 PM
The censorship here doesn't make no sense!

First, if you have a question, problem, or issue you're welcome to PM one of the moderators or administrators to ask why something was done. Second, this isn't a forum for free speech. We have rules here and if people don't follow them they may get moderated, deleted, or banned.

K Thx. :kiss:

boplaw
08-17-12, 11:05 AM
I said "MIGHT BE" considered new. Just because his dealer fixed his problem and yours didn't is no reason to take it out on the forum.

What about a sticky ? Or would that be "taking it out on the forum" too ?

And, my point is that CADILLAC is stonewalling, Mr. Super Moderator. Meanwhile, Ms. Katie comes on here to say "I'll help" when she has absolutely no juice whatsoever. She is window dressing for this place.

That's all I've got to say about the subject.

Carry on.

RippyPartsDept
08-17-12, 12:43 PM
what would be in this proposed sticky? i don't understand what info would be so important to put in a sticky

the issue here (as you quoted JimmyH) is that some people's dealers are not as good at (or willing to) fix this problem
that is not a unique situation to CTS-V owners or Cadillac owners ...

again, i don't understand what info regarding this issue would go in a sticky let alone being important enough to warrant it being a sticky at all

RippyPartsDept
08-17-12, 12:54 PM
as for katie's usefulness i agree that it's a shame she can't help out as much as most would like but it's better than nothing

the best use of her abilities (i think) is realized when you contact her instead of contacting the call center
by doing this you are starting an asynchronous communication/conversation where you can answer reply at your own leisure instead of having to wait on hold for someone at the call center and take up a quarter of your day

she has stepped in many times to help people who are having problems/troubles with their dealer ... i can't say that she will provide you with a satisfactory outcome 100% of the time but some help is better than no help at all

JimmyH
08-17-12, 01:49 PM
First of all, this forum has NO stake in Cadillac, and vice-versa. There is nothing to be gained by us deleting negative comments about Cadillac in general, or any of their cars. So why would we?

Second, Cadillac Cust Svc (which has been controlled by many individuals other than Katie) is here as a point of contact. Nothing more. They are not Cadillac Sales, or Cadillac Technical Service, Cadillac Support Center, etc etc. Whether or not they are effective is not something we can control. Just like we can't control trolls who post nonsense here. (And if we do, we get called Nazi censors, imagine that)

Third, a handful of people who have issues with their vehicles or dealers, or both, does not warrant a pinned thread (which after a while become invisible anyway).

Finally, (and this is just MY personal belief) I think eventually all these forums are going to be controlled by the manufacturers. If you want to complain about censorship, just wait until that happens. Oh wait, when that happens, you won't be able to.

smackdownCTSV
08-17-12, 04:04 PM
First - probably the same reason why you can't post TSB's on here. You're little bitches with sand in your vagina's.
Finally - not likely, unless you mean AG/AF is controlled by manufacturers. I remember seeing a post a while back saying it will be converted into AG/AF. And you've already seen when a group does not like the way a forum is run, they make their own. You can't even post that forums name.

JimmyH
08-17-12, 04:28 PM
Well cool. Open your own blog, and then post, word for word, copyrighted material. See how long your blog stays operational.

Then, go ahead and start your own forum, website, daycare center, etc. Build it up, pour all your time and money into it, and then let a bunch of immature hacks use YOUR resources to build THEIR competing venture. Then we'll talk.

At any rate, if this forum is so awful (while another one is so great), and we are "little bitches" why do you spend so much time here? I am guessing because no one else will put up with your sorry ass.

RippyPartsDept
08-17-12, 04:45 PM
plus everyone is here ... i checked out that 'other' forum last week ... there's almost no activity

their 'most active' day was back in april when a whole 100 people were on the site (half probably not logged in)

M5eater
08-17-12, 04:52 PM
plus everyone is here ... i checked out that 'other' forum last week ... there's almost no activity

their 'most active' day was back in april when a whole 100 people were on the site (half probably not logged in)

You can't just take 10 or 12 people and go off to create your own forum, you have to have a broad audience appeal these days, even then you're setting yourself up for failure most of the time, the successful forums have been around for almost a decade. There's a difference between having a large, self-sustaining environment and a group of people that run off to do their own thing though.

hulksdaddy
08-17-12, 05:05 PM
This thread has taken a weird turn.

RippyPartsDept
08-17-12, 05:13 PM
didn't start out very good either

smackdownCTSV
08-17-12, 06:27 PM
Well cool. Open your own blog, and then post, word for word, copyrighted material. See how long your blog stays operational.

Then, go ahead and start your own forum, website, daycare center, etc. Build it up, pour all your time and money into it, and then let a bunch of immature hacks use YOUR resources to build THEIR competing venture. Then we'll talk.

At any rate, if this forum is so awful (while another one is so great), and we are "little bitches" why do you spend so much time here? I am guessing because no one else will put up with your sorry ass.

I don't blog. But many people who do actually have copyrighted material on there. And sure enough, it's still there. So your point is moot. Not to mention other sites have no problem posting TSB's. This is the only forum that has a problem with it. Even the strict AG/AF doesn't censor that info.

I never said the other one is so great. Why you putting "words" in my mouth? To try and come across as better? Fail! I spend so much time here? Really? I'm on several other forums and other sites a day, my activity here has noticeably diminished since I disagreed with your censorship and unfair infractions. But go ahead and exaggerate. Not like I can use Mod powers to censor it from happening. You're already putting words in my mouth, so why not exaggerate as well to try and prove your point.

JimmyH
08-17-12, 08:57 PM
Believe what you want. You obviously dislike this forum. Yet here you are.

JimmyH
08-17-12, 09:10 PM
Here, to quote you:


Search is your friend. There are just about all the TSB's listed here; supercharger rattle, diff chatter/moan, wheel click, etc.

They are all right here, in this forum, if you care to find them. Search is your friend. We haven't deleted a single TSB posted in this forum.

You want to compile them into one thread? Do it. I will pin it. But when they are pinned, easily found and visible, it won't take a ged to figure out what will happen.

hulksdaddy
08-17-12, 09:15 PM
http://youtu.be/1sONfxPCTU0

JimmyH
08-17-12, 09:19 PM
There will always be a few folks on this forum who make it their mission to disrupt the common good.

smackdown seems to believe Sal, me, and everyone else who's a moderator have hidden agendas, and that we are just here to make sure no one on this forum learns anything about his car. That's why we censor everything, delete posts, and refuse to host a TSB library. We are big brother, and dammit, we are going to make sure everyone here knows it!

Darnell
08-18-12, 09:15 AM
I've made a post about this on the cadillac Facebook page. If everyone having the issue could go comment that would be great. http://www.facebook.com/cadillac?filter=2

M5eater
08-18-12, 09:41 AM
There will always be a few folks on this forum who make it their mission to disrupt the common good.

smackdown seems to believe Sal, me, and everyone else who's a moderator have hidden agendas, and that we are just here to make sure no one on this forum learns anything about his car. That's why we censor everything, delete posts, and refuse to host a TSB library. We are big brother, and dammit, we are going to make sure everyone here knows it!
certian people have not had the opportunity to be apart of a forum where censorship is apart of the atmosphere.

Go hang around on [H]ardOCP , or some of the other computer enthusiast forums. Then enjoy being suspended and/or banned for posting OT replies, or having your posts dissected to the point that yes / no or 'I agree' answers are unacceptable/ where you *must* further the conversation in some meaningful way or have it deleted. I've been apart (albeit shortly..) of such communities where the moderation staff think's it's one giant joke to just spam the ban key because they feel like it, or where the 'rules' are strict to the point that it's what their forum is known for.

as far as drama goes, CF has had the least amount of any forum I've been apart of for the last 10 years, and they have the most active moderators(that is-- they contribute instead of silently sticking to the background, like it's a job or chore) , I haven't seen whatever these people are talking about to be honest, imo, everything has been handled as it should. I'm starting to get the idea that the only drama here is the stuff that has to be invented because of the lack of drama.

JimmyH
08-18-12, 12:05 PM
well, what's a forum without some drama? As for no OT posting, I could never be on a forum like that :D I was actually banned from a forum once (a 1-day ban I think) A bunch of kids were whining about something, I called them on it, and I got a notice I was banned. I obviously didn't fit with that crowd, so I took the hint and never returned.

The Tony Show
08-18-12, 12:40 PM
Aaaaand we're done here. This forum is for discussing the CTS-V, not our policies.