So, one counter argument from an authoritative source (p.878) now amounts to a warrant for descent into a banned area? When there have been hundreds of ‘pro’ controversial posits?
Come on Clive, surely you can see how that looks! Censorship demanded at the introduction of valid professional opinion! That’s no way for friends to behave! The guilty posts you highlight do indeed need a critical eye but moderation has, in a curious way, a wider sense.
Further, I for one did not even hint that a removal of a post should occur. Certainly not me! You might re-read that suggestion and realise at least that I was suggesting a pm’d advice of reasons for a partial edit! You seem to be looking for the fabled Red under the bed!
Then you allege a ‘pointed finger’ at a Mod for ’selective bias’? How very dare you! I at least did not, I even supported mods! Let me reiterate: I sympathise with them in their onerous duties! It's the Rules!
Open comment is a good thing Clive, but in everyone’s interest let’s not fog the issue with a lack of focus. That indeed is exactly what we are trying to prevent! All that’s needed following a transgression is subtlety, the Damocles option always fails.
16 days
__________________
member no. 235
|