Um, hardly. Today the French assembly takes a noble stand for freedom and liberty. Or not. By the way, France - the most advisable course to deal with a subpopulation that might not be the friendliest is not to antagonize them by outlawing simple religious expression. Even in a country that was attacked by religious extremists of the same stripe, the US of A hasn't gone this far.

Cowards.

I work in a French university where more and more students wear headscarves. Some, in another department, wear burkas and this, to the mighty Sorbonne. This means that far from being an expression of the modesty of the Muslim woman, they stand out like sore thumbs. So far I have seen no Jewish symbols and no Christian ones in five years of teaching here. Far from being a sign of Muslim modesty, the headscarf has become an open provocation in a nation which is officially secular.

Be careful! You're humiliating them!

The question arises, in outlawing the head scarf, does France affirm secular values (for arguments sake here, tolerance, equality and liberty)? In light of Islam’s repression of women and it’s views of non-Muslims (dhimmitude and jihad, respectively), and the use of a head scarf as an affirmation of those traditions I feel that the scarf SHOULD be banned from secular schools; without sacrificing any Western/secular views.

But, the real problem is not the head scarf. The real problem is that Muslims do not accept Western/secular views and are largely denouncing assimilation into French/Western society. Do you really think that a Muslim woman without a scarf or a beardless Muslim man will not try to establish an Islamic state in France?

So, what we have is just a cosmetic fix to the conflict between a European/Western Christianity that is getting smaller and an Islam that is greatly escalating.

If you started rounding up the ones wearing Burkas, I bet their dress code would change.
Perhaps you could try a little reverse psychology. Make all Muslim males wear a big Yellow M on their coat. Just the guys mind you. Nothing drys up false calls of civil rights violations like actually violating peoples civil rights.

You know, I have never seen a burka except on Television. Have any of the rest of you seen a burka clad girl?

Have any of the rest of you seen a burka clad girl?

Yeah, in Thailand of all places. I assume it was a woman under there anyway! In fact there were a group of them all waddling behind their men folk.

Both Malco and Andy raise correct reasons for banning the headscarves in France. But I can only think that if the same thing were tried in the U.S. the French would be typically smug by saying we are violating the civil rights of the Muslims because of 9/11 and Amnesty International would be here with sharpened knives. Cooler heads in the U.S. would raise the same points as Malco and Andy and be totally ignored while the French populace would somehow try to tie the actions of the U.S. to some nefarious plot to steal the oil of the Middle East.

Well, it seems that the secularists are having quite a chest-thumping in this thread. That none among the French stick out like sore thumbs (most especially at the "mighty Sorbonne"; so glad to hear those demonstrative Jews and Christians have been quelled, pfft) is the familiar "not like us" well-spring of European fascism qua xenophobia. .

The ban on the hijab is not some victory for women's rights. And hardly a blow against Islamic fundamentalism. A Muslim made to be scarfless/beardless by the state is all the more likely to plot mischief against the state.

It is bad law, advancing a claim by the French government to invent normative religious practice. One needn't make common cause with bad French law to stand against Islamofascism.

And worse it is a mush-law. Determined by polls not principles, poorly written, unclear in its warrants, vague in its enforcement, and circumscribed only by a remit to revisit the law in a year.

But it is a typically oblique French approach to exigent problems. The French political class, with its heady mix of desultory philosophy and political pusillanimity, tiptoes around the Islamofascists to bully Muslim schoolgirls with all the dark powers of state.

Arguments for the preservation of the republic and its democratic and secular traditions are simply phony. The much bruited "French secular tradition" is a fairy tale that is made up on the fly. In the procession of republic to republic and government to government, this "tradition" has embraced just about everything, from state-sponsored religion to state-sponsored hatreds. Much like gaming the Bible, anyone can find whatever he likes to support his claim or complaint within this "tradition".

Of course, in France, where laws of all sorts are ignored or openly flaunted with impunity and/or celebrity, the law's effect may be piffling. But the Fifth Republic now has the privilege on its books.

Whatever one's notions of Islam, it is for the Islamic religious to settle their own religious hash.

I saw burkas all the time in many villages of the south of spain.
Is very scary, things like that aren't like a cross or david star. have a different meaning.
We can't let them wear that. We can't concede anything else. Give to a muslim your hand and he'll steall your arm.
Muslims don't wanna integrate they just wanna take advantadge of the economic situation.
I know i'm generalazing, but thst's the general attitude of muslim inmigration.
our holidays, our food, our pain the rear.
They are a threat and they are in a foreign country, so if France says no religious symbols at school, it's the law and that's all.
For jewish it's a relief, they won't be attacked that often, and christians don't complain that much neither, why muslims do?
Cos a headscarf is something else than a headscarf.
If they wanna wear one, there are daily planes to Argelia.

All our "not the kind of religion" folk will be glad to know the National Assembly has passed the ban, 494-36. Next month the Senate gets a shot at codifying religious curtailment as French law.

Meanwhile French imams and mullahs preach hate and incite violence.

Glad that's all settled.

DGB

So what does this new regulation actually state? That they can't wear this stuff in school, or they can't wear it in public?

To Beo :

The issue is not about them wearing headscarves, but about wearing them at school.
France has a history of laicity in its schools. It's not recent. It has been going on for nearly 100 years. In 1905 the French state decided that religion was a private domain and should not interfere with the state.

I see the state has little trouble interfering with religion, though. Is school mandatory for children in France?

The reason I ask is that if children are required to attend school, and while at school forbidden to abide by the tenets of their religion (however whacky those might be), then the state is directly interfering with the practice of that religion. If that is the case, then the French guys here have a lot of apologizing to do for making the claim that free speech is much more prolific in Europe than America.

J.Mayeau :

Yes, I can see girls in burka every day at the University.

This famous "laicité" is something stronger than secularism.

But in fact, it is an inheritance from Christianism.

"Redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, et quae sunt Dei Deo"
XXII,21

"Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God"

It might be the best description of "Laïcité". Complete separation between heaven's untemporal and human temporal authorities.
This is applyed as well between the cleric establishment the state's authorities

for a long while, school was a "reserved" domain of cleric establishment.
In France
Primary school became mandatory and free for the first time in 1793. But the principle of a school
Mandatory
Free
Secular
between 6 and 13 started wit Jules Ferry's law in 1882 and enforced in 1905 with a law about separating cleric and state's authorities.

So, due to the high progress these events involved, this "Laîcité" is a main pilar of our republic(s). Then, some irrational actions can result.

But don't try to remove this pilar "like this", the sky would fall on your head !!!

Let's clarify some things,

This law bans the "obvious" religious signs in publics institution (then all public schools). Not outside or in transports ore any private area.

So there is no state interference with religious faith and practice.

Religious associations can run private school and get agreed by state upon the content of the scolarity. In these schools, they follow their own rules about what is mandatory/free/banned.

So, this law does not put restriction on basic liberties. However, I did not and still don't think that law was necessary or simply positive.

It should be just matter of internal rule then with possible exception. Better tolerate a scarf than preventing the pupil to learn what she will need to get free later. These girls will then be pushed in islamic schools, I think it will lower their chances for later.
It gives a splendid oportunity to all kinds of fundamentalist to bright with nice speach upon freedom and increase their influence.

In fact, it enforces what it was supposed to undermine. Wrong move...

As French elector, I have my responsability in this. So Beo, I will do my part og appology, not for beeing "liberty underminer" but for beeing then a bit... hum.. how to tell ? Dumb ? No, too strong word, let's tell American ;D

Pierre

Thanks for a very informative post Pierre. Most of it was well thought-out, but I think you are mistaken on one bit - "Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God" does not institute a separation of church and state, but requires Christians to recognize that both church and state have authority over them (government does not supplant religion, or vice versa).

If Caesar requires children to go to school and God requires children to wear a crucifix, these things are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand how a crucufix - or hijab or yarmulke for that matter - obstructs education. If your religion requires you to shave your head, will France require you to grow hair too?

Stripping religious expression from children is not rendering unto Caesar. As you point out, children can attend religious private schools which do not impose restrictions on fundamental self-expression, but that doesn't relieve the state of complicity in restricting basic civil liberties. Since such schools are (I assume) not universally available throughout France, free of charge, so they can't really be considered a reasonable alternative. No one should have to pay for the right to free religious expression.

Recall that state persecution of religion is one of the reasons my country exists. A lot of us tend to take a dim view of the practice (though some of us relish it).

I read a while ago that Chirac had asked his social affairs minister to begin consulting businesses about whether to introduce a law that would also allow workplaces to ban head scarves and other overt religious symbols. This, it said, would require changing the current work code’s anti-discrimination provision, which now forbids firing or disciplining employees for religious reasons.

Given the large number in Chirac’s ruling coalition and in the opposition Socialists who voted for the head ban scarf, is the workplace ban still in the works? With only the Greens, Commies and the anti-immigrant National Front party against the ban (because of Christian symbols) it seems that Chirac would not be hurt too badly going after that law as well.

What political party do the Muslims mostly belong to?

A headscarf is not a religious symbol,is a sign of women's repression in muslim society.

It should be banned in schools and in the streets. Everywhere, like those muslims centers and "mezquitas" where imams teach hate against the country ant the culture that allows them have a better life.
No tolerance with Islam. Zero.
Who wants to have muslims near of his house. No one. The price of your mortage will go extremely down, but the environment will be awfull.
No one will buy your house.
See how they treat the jews? In a very near future they will do the same with catholics...
Ceuta and Melilla are the citys with more domestic violence in Spain, cos it's plenty of muslims.
Since Barcelona has a high rate of muslim inmigration the city is everyday more dangerous and criminality is veryday higher.
This is no racism, are just facts.
Why should we allow this type of behaviour? Muslim community is the worst of the worst.
Imagine catholic inmigration goes to Rabat to claim for a paasport, work and to build catholic churches with Maroccian taxes.
They will laugh of us, in fact the laughs will be so strong we would be able to hear them from Gibraltar.
The current islam, and his wahabbism tendence is just bullshit and spanish population can't stand that shit.
To be honest.

May be true Victor,

A headscarf is not a religious symbol,is a sign of women's repression in muslim society.

But immediately after you go on "They" attack our society, religion, lower the price of our houses, violent, criminals and so on...

You don't tell a word here about women's repression, but simply put all universal problems on Muslim's back.

Try just to search/replace "Muslims" with "Jews", check the result...

How many Muslims do you know personnaly ?

I don't like specially to have Muslims near my house. But I love to have a grocer always open, telling me when he could get good tomatoes etc.
The grocery next my home is run by a Muslim family.

I like to have a neighbour to who I leave my keys when anyone has to work in my apartment while I am working out. The one who gives me that help is Muslim.

I don't like specially having my company "full of arabs". But I love to have colleagues who help me in my own job. Some of them are Muslim. I knew about one of them she was practicing her religion just at Eid day at the end of Ramadan because she brought us some pastry...

Like in any community you will find from the best to the worst.

I don't like the claims like : "Oh it is not his fault, he misbehaved because because unfavorised, humiliated etc. " nor "He stoled ?! Off course, he is a this_or_that !!"

Both are opposite sides of the same fault commonly called RACISM.

Forget the headscarves, kippahs, crosses etc. Just rags and stuff. Only hearts and minds behind them count.

Pierre, I'm with you all the way except for one thing, and it's a minor quibble - it's not "racism." Maybe bigotry, certainly stereotyping, but not racism.

>But it is a typically oblique French approach to
>exigent problems.

How easy to qualify french people. Replace "french" with any other nation (let's say "american" for instance) and you would be the first person to condomne such statement.
And the rest of your post is of the same "quality". Are you really the Damian Bennett that advertise his thinking skills on his website ?

Stephane

Are you joking?

Yes, I can see girls in burka every day at the University.

I wonder if their are Burka wearing muslim girls in Berkley? Have any of you from the USA seen a burka? It seems that the Burka is an extreem that is quickly shucked by muslim women as they come into America. That is the impression I get, but I only see what's happening in my little corner of the world. Maybe things are different in other more populated parts of America.

J.Mayeau :

Huu... I live in France, so I don't know anything about the clothes american students wear at University.

Maybe I didn't used the good word, I meant by burka (I may be wrong), a kind af headscarf which covers the whole body ; the only thing you can see is the girl's little face (and you can't see even hershoes).

I don't know what to think, I just feel sorry for those girls who have to wear that kind of clothes, because the female body is the most beatiful thing in the world and it's should be a pleasure to look at it, not a pity.

SO sad :-(

Pierre :

Where are you from ?

Have any of you from the USA seen a burka?

Probably not five times in my life, and there's a healthy muslim/arab community not far from me (stomping ground of the "Buffalo Six"). Veils aren't uncommon though (it seems mostly popular with the middle-aged women), and I see hijabs by the hundreds.

>But it is a typically oblique French approach to
>exigent problems.

Hmm, nice rethoric, you should be proud. Is it your typical oblique way of thinking ? Btw, are you the real Damian Bennett (the one who's bragging on his website about his thinking skills) ? Or is it just a stunt to make the poor soul bear your cross ?

Damien doesn't brag. He lets us do the bragging for him. You should be so lucky

If he is indeed the same person, I consider it bragging, after reading the posts he made here.
I remember older posts that were much more constructive than this one, so let me doubt about his current thinking skills. Perhaps you're right, it might be pure luck after all.

Stephane,

I am from (near) Paris. So, I am to French people what New-Yorkers are to American, Eh....

In my little suburb, I could see once in a doner restaurant, a young woman in a burka. Nothing to do with those awfull blue bags with grid to hide the eyes.

It was a complete black dressing covering all but her eyes. And what eyes !! A dark deep proud burning gaze, completely hypnotic for me. Unpossible to see anyone else than this whoman whatever where the gals in miniskirt and sleeveless going around. When she removed the piece covering her mouth to start eating... was like a streap tease ;DDD

Just a feeling, compleetely proofless, but deep: I don't think this woman was "submitted" to anyone, may be to something ?

Pierre :

Nice to meet you, I'm from (near) Grenoble.

I said that I meet girls in the same burka that you described, every day at University.

I'm used to see girls dressed like that so I don't really pay attention, but I'm able to notice (when I look at them) that they're kind of feeling sad, I'm do not see some feeling of happiness that I can see usually when I look at people.

Just like you I didn't feel that they were "submitted" to someone but they looked like somebone who is sad because he didn't manage to do something... (strange feeling indeed but it's hard to explain).

As someone who has no religion, I believe that every women should be able to show how pretty she is. As christina aguilera says "We are beautiful in every single way !"

How would you feel if you were wearing a burka in a middle of hundreds of girls in shortskirt ?

Nature didn't make woman so beatiful to hide her beauty !

Yes Stéphane

Nature didn't make woman so beatiful to hide her beauty !

But even such a right statement cannot be enforced by law...

The logic is that headscarves and burka are sign of submission. Indeed load of faithfull Muslim women don't wear any of these stuff.

But setting a law telling tha "It is mandatory to be free" or "It's forbiden to be submitted" is great in idea and nonsense in practice.

The best we can do is provide all help to get and stay free.
For these girls I think that learning in secular school is way better help than beeing fired out to Muslims schools.

Personnaly I would not care if the lady at the postoffice wear an headscarve, what I care is how she will do with my letters.

But I think that when its matter of customer relation, the more exigent customer wishes prevail.
Then the gal in post office don't wear headscarve, and when I go to meet new customer, I wear a tie... Because of the 2% of them who still have exigence about this.

It's a great idea indeed and something like that shouldn't be the law, it should be normal.

I don't really know what we should do about headscarves, but it's a subject that must be discussed with everybody...

I wonder if there are some problems like this in the US ??

The only real problems in the US over these things has been a couple cases where muslim women have tried to get the right to have identification photos taken while wearing a veil or burqa. Yes, you read that right - identifications photos, like state ID or drivers' licenses, which do not show the face (and if I understand correctly, Switzerland already permits this). They claim it infringes on their freedom of expression to have identification photos which could actually identify them (Saudi Arabia does not even permit this).

Maybe my understanding of it is wrong, but I didn't think it was actually a religious issue. I had thought that it was a tradition which was instituted back when Europeans regularly stopped by to rape the women and kill the men. By not permitting men outside their immediate family to see their face, they were thought to be better protected (removing temptation, I guess). Do I have this wrong? Or was the practice codified at some point in the body of Islamic law?

it's a problem in a lot of countries i think. at least it exists in france too. since those women think it's right to show their face (hair, ears and stuff) to their husband _only_, they want to make identity photos with their veil. but the law is the same for everyone, and it should not be tolerated.
republic before religion, that's what we say here, but they don't seem to understand, saying the state is going against their freedom and shit.
it's funny cause they couldn't get more freedom in any islamic country, they wouldn't even know what that word really means

The problem with the identity cards is that their very purpose is to identify someone. Since we do not have a mandatory national identity card in the USA, the only reason a person would need to submit to a photo ID is for a driver's license or corporate ID security card, passport, etc. Since driver's licenses and passports are government issued documents, they should have to bear their face like everyone else - or else not apply for the document. When I turned 16 years old oh so long ago, I was told very clearly by my parents, driver's ed teachers, etc. that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Any basic right like privacy of life becomes crazy when it's pushed at 100% or above.
Or at least contestation must go on the right thing.
An id photo where you cannot check the id is useless. Than an honest protest should be to ask for licenses or any paperstate without photo ;)
We had such cases like this in France too.
Easy to stop this sort of kidding. Your id cards, licenses and so on are private. You don't have to show tham to other than police, state employee etc.
Plus some little common sense. I hardly imagine safe driving with a full burka...

I don't think our free world beeing in threat by these exceptiomal stupid request.

A polite but definitive "Sorry, but I am affraid it's impossible" solves the problem.

"A polite but definitive 'Sorry, but I am affraid it's impossible' solves the problem."

You obviously don't understand our legal system. Not that I'm defending it, but once lawyers are involved, it can get quite ridiculous.

A privilege is a right granted to a specific person, thus a privilege is a right, but a right is not necessarily a privilege.
A license, in the eye of the law (the US one, but I suspect it is the same in France), is a privilege granted under specific constraints. These constraints have to be accepted and followed by those requesting the grant, otherwise the license is canceled.

Yes, this is indeed nitpicking.

Here is the distinction:

Rights are inherent, and irrevocable.

Privileges can be revoked at any time.

DOUG :

You are right ! Actually, these ideas of headscarves began in Europe, in the catholic (I think) community to prevent rape.

If you look at the root of history you'll see that headscarves, burka and stuff like that have nothing to do with islamic religion !!

Beo,

Rights, in law, are neither inherent nor irrevocable. They are a class of entitlements.

When John Locke referred to "inalienable rights" he reached to describe the behests of natural law, an inviolable authority as opposed to the passing authority of governments. The original formulation for natural law was "life, liberty, and estate", to which Mr. Jefferson gave the felicitous turn, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Now rights, natural or otherwise, only have force in that they are recognized. It's all very nice to say, for example, there is a right to life, but it means nothing if the law affords this right no protections.

Elsewhere:

Btw, are you the real Damian Bennett (the one who's bragging on his website about his thinking skills)? Or is it just a stunt to make the poor soul bear your cross?
Posted by anon at February 13, 2004 08:49 PM

Yes, Anon, I am a real person. My Web site states we are paid to think, which we are.

But who are you? A nobody without a name hailing from a tuna boat? Or is your e-mail address a stunt, freeloading off someone else's site?

As for your posts, I have only one rule for insults and comments alike, that they be intelligble. Whatever your generalized substitution recipe proves about a particularized statement is anybody's guess. I've no doubt any number of countries would be insulted to have their national character considered interchangeable with France's.

I imagine the bolded excerpt above is intended as an insult. But what ever could it mean? Have you somehow assumed my patibulum by visiting the Web site? Why does my person not feel lightened?

But then yours is an affected, sensitive mind richly endowed with the gift of sneering. Sneer away, Anon.

DGB

>As for your posts, I have only one rule for
>insults and comments alike, that they be
>intelligble.

It was as much understandable as your post :
I made a broad unreasoned statement, flamed you, and now I have your attention (isn't it the modus operandi of this site ?). Would you restate your prose in a more reasonable way (like when you have to prove something), and I'll be glad to sneer away.

>I've no doubt any number of countries would be
>insulted to have their national character
>considered interchangeable with France's.

You can say whatever you want about this guy I don't care; this doesn't make every single frenchman as bad (or shoud I say as oblique) as he is. Would you have stated that instead of flaming french as a whole without reason, I wouldn't have been flaming you in the first place.

Lastly, I hope you didn't bother these poor fellows of the anon.org website. They don't know who I am, and I wasn't aware of their existence until a few days ago. I've changed my mail address in my last reply here to reflect this. Thanks anyway to point this out, from now on noone (including me you may say) will have to carry my "patibulum".

I made a broad unreasoned statement, flamed you, and now I have your attention (isn't it the modus operandi of this site ?).

Touche

Let’s see, what have we here.

Someone signing himself Anon, the non-person, asking after the personhood of someone signing his real name. Anon is inane.

Anon, the non-person, inventing a fictitious e-mail address, uses a real domain without permission or the bother of checking. Anon is reckless and lazy.

Anon, the non-person, then complains that the real person’s post is oblique, but goes on to offer a counterargument. But a counterargument requires an understanding of the argument being put forward. Anon is being either specious or sloppy or both.

But, no, the non-person’s argument simply posits that a particular statement that cannot be generalized is false. Anon begs the most rudimentary grasp of processional logic.

The non-person asserts this is the modus operandi at Pave. But of course it’s not. The modus operandi at Pave is to post intelligently, something clearly beyond Anon’s turbid powers of mind. Later Anon, the non-person, asserts his post:

… was as much understandable as your post
Posted by anon at February 24, 2004 07:01 AM

This repudiates either Anon’s first claim that my post was not understandable or it confirms my claim that Anon’s post was unintelligible. Either way Anon here is arguing against Anon.

Anon, the non-person, goes on to admit making an unreasonable post for the purpose of garnering attention. Anon is pathetically self-absorbed.

Fast on the heels of this:

Would you restate your prose in a more reasonable way (like when you have to prove something)
Ibid.

Is this:

You can say whatever you want about this guy I don't care; this doesn't make every single frenchman as bad (or shoud I say as oblique) as he is.
Ibid.

Anon doesn’t care what you think. “If Anon don’t get it, it ain’t gettable.” Anon will not be disabused. Anon seems to think being stupid a good thing. Far be it from Anon to actually prove anything much less manage deep argument in his at times tortured, at times cryptic, at times pidgin English. Why am I not surprised that Anon can’t follow the argument in the thread? Why could I not care less?

Some flame. More foirade than flame. Touché indeed.

DGB

I'm glad you finally took the time to make some analysis. I put so much efforts (it is not in my natural talents to mindlessly attack people) in these posts to have you do this, it's a relief to see you're still capable of doing it. It's still not as good as you used to do, but you're on the right way.

>The non-person asserts this is the modus
>operandi at Pave. But of course it’s not. The
>modus operandi at Pave is to post intelligently,
> something clearly beyond Anon’s turbid powers
>of mind.

Hmm, let see, I assert, you assert the opposit, nice talk. So I'll back up my previous post : check out the front page and have a look at the article posts. Not much thinking going on there. I can see humor from time to time, and most of the time flamebaiting reports of others people articles ( especially the krempasky ones - insulting people doesn't make a report funny nor intelligent).
Logic dictate that I would only need one counter example to invalidate your statement, and krempasky adequately fits the need.
And some latin to conclude (you like that don't you ?) : Quod erat demonstratum.

I put so much efforts (it is not in my natural talents to mindlessly attack people) in these posts...
Posted by anon at February 26, 2004 09:55 AM

I think Anon has made plain the modest reach of his natural talents, no need for reminders. But where are the "so much efforts" he claims for these posts? It remains a mystery what argument in his many posts he is struggling to advance other than inflated ideas of himself. Yes, everything seems to start with Anon, the non-person.

As for refutation, Anon has also demonstrated his defective processional logic, but he feels obliged to entertain us by flunking out again. What is at issue here is an injunction to post intelligently. It is not Mr. Krempasky who is in contravention, but Anon's confused posts themselves that violate this injunction.

A counter-example is not wholly a counter-argument. A counter-example of a violation or a hundred or a thousand counter-examples do not constitute a counter-argument. Just as we are all enjoined not to drink and drive, the constant toll of DUI fatalities does not disprove the injunction.

And finally what are we to make of Anon's preening QED? What does he think he has proved? That contumely and self-admiration are the first defenses of the feeble intellect? I would grant that his posts hypostatize that conclusion.

What then is the point in continuing to beat down Anon's marshmallow discursus? Though hiding behind a pseudonym, he's delighted with all the attention, his pronounced purpose here. Let him flame and sputter.

In leaving, I return the compliment of some Latin for the non-person: Ubi nihil vales, ibi nihil velis.

DGB

Ok, I wasn't clear enough, my bad.

So you asserted "The modus operandi at Pave is to post intelligently".
The modus operandi here defines the way people must behave in order to comply with the spirit of the site. Thus we expect that all the article posts on the front page follow this rule.
Mr Krempasky, who incidently is in charge of the site, doesn't display any sign of intelligence in his posts, contradicting your very assertion.
In other words, one element of the set doesn't follow the rule you postulated on the set (the set being constituted by the frontpage article posters). Mr Krempasky constitute the counter example I mentioned previously.
I hope this time you understand my discursus.