Trunk

new COVID discussion rule/s

Recommended Posts

Moderating COVID remains an issue.

 

Our previous fix was to limit COVID discussion to the new Current Events section (introduced in this post) and to PPDs. 

 

That, of course, led to a complication: owner of PPD moderating out opposing views from the own COVID thread in their PPD.  Which presents a situation where potentially lethal medical misinformation re: a global pandemic could stand unopposed.

 

I've chewed over several solutions, as well as some obvious perspective that bares re-statement: this is not a medical research site and we are not trained infectious disease specialists; TDBs is an internal arts discussion board.  Previous to all this I thought about the worst thing that'd happen here was a threat of violence over the internet between strangers who don't even know each other's real names, much less locations.  Now, with COVID, we have plausible consequences of serious illness or death due to medical misinformation.

 

So, here's a 3 option plan and - for now at least - I'm implementing #1.

 

#1. If you have a COVID related thread in your PPD, you can not moderate out opposing COVID prevention & treatment views from that COVID related thread (nor “ban” any member from such a thread).  If you'd rather have that thread moved to the Current Events section (you can keep a hidden original version within your PPD), staff would be happy to.  If you do moderate out opposing treatment views in such a thread, you'll be given a warning and asked to reverse your action.  Repeated offenses escalate to warning, suspension, worst case the thread gets locked & hidden in your own PPD (still with an option to have it copied to the Current Events section).

 

Though it's not a rule at this point... Please consider, as a matter of courtesy, posting controversial Current Events topics (non- internal arts) in the Current Events section.  It's less distracting for the rest of the community.

 

... if COVID treatment discussion continues to be a problematic issue here at TDBs, then ...

 

#2. COVID prevention & treatment discussion will be entirely restricted to the Current Events section.  Any such threads in PPDs will be locked in position (or copied/moved to Current Events at the member's request).

 

.. or ..

 

#3. Ban the COVID prevention & treatment subject from TDBs entirely.

 

My personal knee-jerk reaction is that I'd rather shut the entire site down for the duration of COVID rather than to contribute to the serious illness / death of a single person.  ... but I realize that the situation is a bit more nuanced than that, lol.  #3 would be a nice clean solution.  This is a serious enough issue that I reserve the right to enact #2 or #3 at any time for any reason (or for no further reason other than the already situation).

 

Anyway, just #1 for now.

Community feedback welcome.

 

- Trunk, admin

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for addressing this Mr T  .   :)

 

I have nothing to do with those sections but I am observing less and less activity in the main sections of DBs . Are these covid discussions  very active ? Is that where the traffic has gone ?

 

I am all for solution 3 . Its been two years now .   Thats enough time to have flogged this all out . I am sure there are other sites where people could go to discuss it .

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m all for open discussion and don´t object to solution #1 but would suggest a slight softening.  As the rule stands now, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of those with Covid topic ppds to take any moderation action whatsoever, however justified.  Suppose a Bum insults another Bum in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  Or suppose a Bum links to homophobic sites in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  (Astoundingly, this happened.)  In these cases I think a ppd moderator ought to have the option of hiding the post in question or even banning the offending member from the thread.  If it was my ppd, I would want the option of using my own judgment in such matters.  As the rule stands now, any moderation action on the part of a ppd owner might feel fraught with danger.  What about taking a "first offense" to be an opportunity to open up a dialogue between the moderators and ppd owner rather than a trigger for immediate and punative action?

 

In some ways this seems like a solution in search of a problem.  I´m pretty active in several of the threads in question and can´t think of a single instance in which a thread owner has used moderation powers to shut down polite disagreement.  Am I missing something?

 

 

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I´m all for open discussion and don´t object to solution #1 but would suggest a slight softening.  As the rule stands now, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of those with Covid topic ppds to take any moderation action whatsoever, however justified.  Suppose a Bum insults another Bum in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  Or suppose a Bum links to homophobic sites in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  (Astoundingly, this happened.)  In these cases I think a ppd moderator ought to have the option of hiding the post in question or even banning the offending member from the thread.  If it was my ppd, I would want the option of using my own judgment in such matters.  As the rule stands now, any moderation action on the part of a ppd owner might feel fraught with danger.  What about taking a "first offense" to be an opportunity to open up a dialogue between the moderators and ppd owner rather than a trigger for immediate and punative action?

 

An additional (in addition to illness & death issue) aspect to COVID discussion is moderator staff's attention, energy, time.  I'm not willing to spend more staff energy over this issue (which is *way* outside the scope of topic and stakes of TDBs in the first place), and not much of my own.  I'll be mainly addressing this issue myself going forward.  If it comes to much further time spent on nuanced adjudication decisions re: COVID, my move will be to simplify the situation through strong reduction: towards removing the issue from TDBs altogether (#2 or #3).  As I outlined above.

 

Normally, members are given very broad powers within their own PPD.  Almost always, that's the way it should be and will be.

 

However, in this unique case of the global COVID pandemic,

I'm not for nuanced adjudication of members' sense of propriety of their PPDs ... it doesn't weigh in equally against the lethality of a global medical public issue.

 

- Trunk

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for addressing this issue Trunk. I go for option 2 myself. Allowing what is really controversial current affairs discussion in members PPD’s was always a loophole in the new rule confining current events discussion to a separate section. To my understanding, PPD’s are not meant as little subforums where people can spruik their own opinions on controversial topics.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Current Events section has the additional plus of hiding the discussion from not only the browsing non-members, but also hides those topics from members who’ve not requested access to the Current Events.  It removes clutter, keeps a filter so that members can enjoy this board for its’ stated scope: internal arts.

 

16 minutes ago, Yueya said:

Thank you for addressing this issue Trunk. I go for option 2 myself. Allowing what is really controversial current affairs discussion in members PPD’s was always a loophole in the new rule confining current events discussion to a separate section. To my understanding, PPD’s are not meant as little subforums where people can spruik their own opinions on controversial topics.  

 

While I agree with most of what you said, I don’t intend to extend this strict action to “controversial topics” in general.  The COVID issue is an extreme case, outside the usual.

 

I do like people keeping Current Event stuff (politics, etc) in the Current Events section as a matter of courtesy, but I hope that it’s very unusual that staff has to moderate that as a matter of rule.  (*ugh*, thinks back over last several years)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

I´m all for open discussion and don´t object to solution #1 but would suggest a slight softening.  As the rule stands now, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of those with Covid topic ppds to take any moderation action whatsoever, however justified.  Suppose a Bum insults another Bum in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  Or suppose a Bum links to homophobic sites in a thread in the course of putting forth an opposing view?  (Astoundingly, this happened.) 

 

If you’d actually followed the links to the homophobic content, you would have found that in all three cases they were linked to articles scoffing at and ridiculing these exact homophobic views, two were even from an LBGTI site. 

 

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

In these cases I think a ppd moderator ought to have the option of hiding the post in question or even banning the offending member from the thread. 
 

 

Or you could do what everyone else does in all other areas, and report the offending post to the moderators, who will hopefully examine the issue thoroughly, perhaps discuss it with the offender to determine what is actually going on, and give an evaluated response, not a knee jerk reaction. 

 

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

If it was my ppd, I would want the option of using my own judgment in such matters.  As the rule stands now, any moderation action on the part of a ppd owner might feel fraught with danger.  What about taking a "first offense" to be an opportunity to open up a dialogue between the moderators and ppd owner rather than a trigger for immediate and punative action?

 

In some ways this seems like a solution in search of a problem.  I´m pretty active in several of the threads in question and can´t think of a single instance in which a thread owner has used moderation powers to shut down polite disagreement.  Am I missing something?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all for #2, and limiting all new COVID conversations to the current events section, I’d personally like to see all previous COVID threads shifted to that section and all hidden posts restored, but that might be hoping for too much. I’ve well and truly had enough of COVID misinformation being repeatedly presented on the all activity feed. 
 

I also think this would set a good precedent for the next current affairs conflict, because there will be one won’t there? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

An additional (in addition to illness & death issue) aspect to COVID discussion is moderator staff's attention, energy, time.  I'm not willing to spend more staff energy over this issue (which is *way* outside the scope of topic and stakes of TDBs in the first place), and not much of my own.  I'll be mainly addressing this issue myself going forward.  If it comes to much further time spent on nuanced adjudication decisions re: COVID, my move will be to simplify the situation through strong reduction: towards removing the issue from TDBs altogether (#2 or #3).  As I outlined above.

 

Normally, members are given very broad powers within their own PPD.  Almost always, that's the way it should be and will be.

 

However, in this unique case of the global COVID pandemic,

I'm not for nuanced adjudication of members' sense of propriety of their PPDs ... it doesn't weigh in equally against the lethality of a global medical public issue.

 

- Trunk


If COVID posting continues in PPD’s I would like moderators to make a decision on whether Cheya has the right to ban me from contributing to any further COVID discussion in her PPD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bindi said:


If COVID posting continues in PPD’s I would like moderators to make a decision on whether Cheya has the right to ban me from contributing to any further COVID discussion in her PPD. 

 

Decision made:

Edited the rule to include the variation,

Quote

#1. If you have a COVID related thread in your PPD, you can not moderate out opposing COVID views from that COVID related thread (nor “ban” any member from such a thread).

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I´m all for open discussion and don´t object to solution #1 but would suggest a slight softening.  As the rule stands now, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of those with Covid topic ppds to take any moderation action whatsoever, however justified.  ...

 

In some ways this seems like a solution in search of a problem.  ...

 

I'm glad that the community has offered feedback.  There are permutations that I hadn't considered, and the various pts of view offered here have given me things to chew on (today and probably in following days).

 

#1 opens the situation for staff moderating how a member moderates their own PPD, which I don't like.  And which, admittedly is sometimes nuanced (not the blatant shutting down of opposing COVID opinion, which is what I was intending to target).  And a more nuanced situation should trigger a more nuanced response ... but also I don't want to get into that whole complicated area w/ COVID.

 

#2 excludes a topic from discussion within a member's own PPD, which I also don't like.

 

Any way that this gets addressed, there's going to be a down-side that could cause offense.  I'm trying to rule favoring safety.

 

- Trunk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

Any way that this gets addressed, there's going to be a down-side that could cause offense.  I'm trying to rule favoring safety.

 

- Trunk

 

I know your heart is in the right place Trunk and I appreciate that.  You don´t want someone to make a bad medical decision for themselves as a result of something they read here, especially given that such decisions could have lethal consequences.  This situation feels so serious and so out of control that it´s tempting to do things we ordinarily wouldn´t (like impose rules on ppd moderation) in order to avoid contributing to the current catastrophe.  I get it, I do.  I understand how difficult it is to navigate this situation and that you and the rest of the moderation team are doing your best.  

 

That said, I urge you to reconsider this latest ruling.  I don´t think the moderation team ought to be in the business of influencing the health decisions of the membership.  Not even now.  It may seem like you have a responsibility to combat what you might feel is "misinformation" but there is reasonable doubt as to what is true and what isn´t.  You´ve mentioned that the moderators don´t have the energy to adjudicate all this and I totally agree -- they shouldn´t be in the business of making such judgments.  In the end, I think we all have to trust each other to make up our own minds.  That´s tough to do but it´s the right thing.  Somebody might convince somebody not to get vaccinated and the unvaccinated person could die.  Somebody could convince a person to get vaccinated and they could someday suffer as yet unforeseen debilitating side effects from the injection.  It´s not the place of the moderation team to decide what´s true for others.  However much you might personally disagree with some of the views put forth in threads by Cheya and Taomeow, the right thing to do is to allow discussion.

 

A person might think given this latest rule that the ppd owners have been blocking posts of Bums who disagree with them willy-nilly.  That is not the case.  Taomeow has never hidden a post in her Batshit Sane thread.  Cheya has only hidden posts of Bums who were flagrantly insulting or else linked to homophobic websites.  Bindi´s vaccines-cause-homosexuality links are offensive.  Is there really any question about that?  These same links were deemed offensive when she posted them in her PPD and were hidden by the moderators at that time.  What has changed now that she should be allowed to remain in a thread after reposting these same links we originally objected to?  She was not banned from Cheya´s thread for disagreeing with Cheya about science.  She was banned for linking to homophobic content.  To reverse Cheya´s considered decision seems wrong.  

 

On the face of it, this latest decree seems to be about supporting the free exchange of information but in fact it does the opposite.  Cheya and Taomeow have already hidden the threads in question.  That´s not your fault of course but it´s easy to see how they might feel offended by having their moderation powers diminished. Nobody wants to be singled out as less worthy of standard-issue ppd ownership. Especially when it´s happening to them and nobody else.  There are no pro-vaccine threads in ppds that will have to abide by this new ruling.  Please reconsider.

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your paragraph 2 explains exactly the problem .  Who are moderators to decide  what leads to a persons death or not ( by following 'advice'  here ).

 

Which is why I like solution 3 .  That's  'safe'  - both ways .  But that  might not address the deeper and underlying issue * .

 

I dont get involved in the talks .  How has that effected me in any way ?  I made my own decisions without any input from TBs . I did my own research and  was educated on the issues pros and cons by my sister who is a medical microbiologist .  Like I said , 2 years should have been enough for anyone to get to a decision point .  I would not feel locked out or censored about anything as I can take that conversation many other places . 

 

* The deeper level dynamic going on with all this is evidenced by people still flogging a horse they should have made a decision on by now .    (In case thats confusing , the deeper level and dynamic here is the  need to continue  horse flogging .)

 

I have even noticed that in my personal social environments , even  some hard line people ( on either side of the fence ) have stopped 'flogging' , if it comes to light someone is or isn't vaccinated  now its  "  Uh , " or  just even a nod with no sound coming out . Many people just don't discuss the pros and cons any more  .... they have made their decision and now its just a matter of events and results playing out .

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @Trunk

I appreciate you taking steps you feel are in the best interest of this community and the community at large. That’s all anyone can ask.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Trunk said:

 

 the blatant shutting down of opposing COVID opinion, which is what I was intending to target

 

At the risk of being a royal pain in the nether regions, I´ll reach out one final time.  Part of me wants to ask you to justify this latest ruling by posting an example of a blatant shutting down of opposing Covid opinion but I won´t do that because I don´t want to be "that guy."  You´ve likely had enough of thinking and discussing this issue.  You might even be ready to return to the demands of your (gasp) real life.  I get it.

 

So here´s the favor I´d ask instead.  Would you be willing to privately consider whether there´s been any blatant shutting down of opposing Covid opinion?  Have you found an example or two when a ppd owner of a Covid thread has hidden a post or banned a member who wasn´t also being insulting or throwing some sort of a tantrum?  If not, I suggest that this ruling is creating a problem (and potentially more work for the moderation team) where none existed.

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

At the risk of being a royal pain in the nether regions, I´ll reach out one final time.  Part of me wants to ask you to justify this latest ruling by posting an example of a blatant shutting down of opposing Covid opinion but I won´t do that because I don´t want to be "that guy."  You´ve likely had enough of thinking and discussing this issue.  You might even be ready to return to the demands of your (gasp) real life.  I get it.

 

So here´s the favor I´d ask instead.  Would you be willing to privately consider whether there´s been any blatant shutting down of opposing Covid opinion?  Have you found an example or two when a ppd owner of a Covid thread has hidden a post or banned a member who wasn´t also being insulting or throwing some sort of a tantrum?  If not, I suggest that this ruling is creating a problem (and potentially more work for the moderation team) where none existed.

 

Didn't Cheya delete some of Bindi's posts?

 

To be quite honest, the entire anti-vaxx BS should not be given a public platform. After all, Reddit, Twitter and YouTube are banning COVID disinformation and this site should rise to those standards. How many people have to die or have long haul symptoms due to a few spreading big lies? 

 

Regarding the few that are spreading disinformation there are about twelve persons across various social media sites that are responsible for this and millions buy into it almost without question.

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Didn't Cheya delete some of Bindi's posts?

 

 

Yes she did but only those that contained personal insults.  Cheya allowed almost all of Bindi´s to stand whether she agreed with them or not, as long as they didn´t also contain insults.  Bindi was not banned from the thread until she reposted homophobic links that the moderation team had already disallowed.

 

Have any of your posts in Cheya´s threads been hidden, ralis?  I think it safe to say that Cheya has disagreed with you on occasion but, to my memory, has not used her moderation powers to silence your views.

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

To be quite honest, the entire anti-vaxx BS should not be given a public platform. After all, Reddit, Twitter and YouTube are banning COVID disinformation and this site should rise to those standards. How many people have to die or have long haul symptoms due to a few spreading big lies? 

 

Ralis,

 

I think you´ve put your finger on the exact issue at hand.  As you say, the big social media sites (Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, etc) have put forth considerable effort to ban what they take to be "Covid disinformation" from their platforms.  The question I believe the moderation team is grappling with -- although they haven´t said as much -- is to what extent this forum should do the same.  

 

The logic that underlies "banning COVID disinformation" rests on some assumptions.  Those who take it upon themselves to do such banning believe they are in possession of the truth.  They believe the sources they get their information from are trustworthy, and other sources of information untrustworthy.  Since they know what´s what and views contrary to their own can endanger lives, they feel justified shutting down the free flow of debate.

 

I question these assumptions.  Although I´m no expert, I think it´s possible that the big government health agencies aren´t giving the public a complete, truthful and nuanced accounting of what´s going on with the Pandemic.  For this I´m labeled a "conspiracy theorist."  People think I´m nuts.  I don´t think I was crazy before all this started but I might be before it´s over.  

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Yes she did but only those that contained personal insults.  Cheya allowed almost all of Bindi´s to stand whether she agreed with them or not, as long as they didn´t also contain insults.  Bindi was not banned from the thread until she reposted homophobic links that the moderation team had already disallowed.

 

Have any of your posts in Cheya´s thread been hidden, ralis?  I think it safe to say that Cheya has disagreed with you on occasion but, to my memory, has not used her moderation powers to silence your views.

 

I posted very little in her threads. Asked for clarification a few times, but no response was forthcoming.

 

Disinformation posted by anti-vaxxers on this forum have no relevance and should not be allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Ralis,

 

I think you´ve put your finger on the exact issue at hand.  As you say, the big social media sites (Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, etc) have put forth considerable effort to ban what they take to be "Covid disinformation" from their platforms.  The question I believe the moderation team is grappling with -- although they haven´t said as much -- is to what extent this forum should do the same.  

 

The logic that underlies "banning COVID disinformation" rests on some assumptions.  Those who take it upon themselves to do such banning believe they are in possession of the truth.  They believe the sources they get their information from are trustworthy, and other sources of information untrustworthy.  Since they know what´s what and views contrary to their own can endanger lives, they feel justified shutting down the free flow of debate.

 

I question these assumptions.  Although I´m no expert, I think it´s possible that the big government health agencies aren´t giving the public a complete, truthful and nuanced accounting of what´s going on with the Pandemic.  For this I´m labeled a "conspiracy theorist."  People think I´m nuts.  I don´t think I was crazy before all this started but I might be crazy before it´s over.  

 

Truth? Scientific investigation seeks to discover facts, not truth. Debating truth is better left to philosophical and religious discussions if one has a need to deal in absolutes. Public health agencies are concocting a vast global conspiracy to hide the truth? Thousands of scientists are hiding the real truth, but are lying to the entire world by presenting alternative facts? Not buying that at all!

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious what happens when one posts in their own ppd about covid, and then locks the thread to any other replies?   Is that bannable?  Or must mods then decide to move it or leave it?  I have some pretty non-standard ideas of treating many cancers, heart disease, blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes... will i be forced to allow anyone to participate in those discussions?

 

I thought the main idea of personal logs was that they lay outside public search engines and this mitigated their content needing moderation.  Allowing others to participate in one's private area has always been a discretion.  Rightly so in my opinion.

 

If this discretion is removed... it seems odd.

 

My sense of it is, if censorship is up for action, then simply ban the entire topic for now anywhere on the site.  Let them talk of it on the myriad other sites that abound.

 

That or allow folks to be as enlightened or ignorant as they are, and moderate according to the site rules.  Like cooking a small fish, ideally... don't overdo it.

 

Perhaps we are giving TB too much credit for influencing the minds of others. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm supposed to be taking a break from the forum, but this is something I want to chime in: my own PPD was the subject of debates about how much control I have over the content in there and who can and can't post. Granted, a lot of it was also a joke and a bit of a middle finger at the time to the mods because I didn't like how things had developed during and after the Wild West period (of which I have at least made my personal peace over and have no lingering issues with the past anymore).

 

This situation here brought me here to share some food for thought:

 

1) I respect Luke's questioning of the current narrative and Taomeow's research. What I do not enjoy are people who have a degree of self-certainty and belligerence, like one member who was banned for it, Toni, who spent most of his time insulting people who didn't agree with him. 

 

2) I accept that PPJs all fall under forum rules, though I can't help but notice that certain members end up getting more leeway due to what I perceive as being legacy and familiarity: long term members who are chummier with more people seem to be left to their own devices until this came up and it's more of a broad issue than the individual member. The spirit of the community's good will is more in question than the rule of the law. 

 

3) Because of the issue of rules and goodwill now both coming into question, this presents a unique scenario: banning the subject severely limits the relevance of the topic and the ability for many members to come express themselves, as well as the opportunity for other members to practice their supposed philosophical and spiritual frameworks. This applies both to general moderation and to individual ownership of one's on PPJ. 

 

It becomes more aggravating because as Ralis has pointed out, truth and facts are separate things to discuss. It would take too much time to really focus on the philosophical discussion when facts are being debated, and if facts are debated while information is constantly changing and appears nebulous, it becomes difficult to arrive at truth. 

 

This would be too much work for mods to help make sure people discuss in a manner focused on the philosophical nature of the covid debate since two years into it, people are still debating facts, which isn't helped by the disinformation from the CCP and the chaotic nature of both media and the world governments scrambling to keep things together (i.e., covering their asses). 

 

The optimists may say that they survived the polarization of the Trump threads, but the cynics will point to the consistent exhaustion that seems to be felt amongst everyone, compared to the Trump supporters feeling emboldened while Ralis was essentially on his own fighting misinformation and extreme ideological bias before the thread was finally and thankfully pitted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Yes she did but only those that contained personal insults.  Cheya allowed almost all of Bindi´s to stand whether she agreed with them or not, as long as they didn´t also contain insults.  Bindi was not banned from the thread until she reposted homophobic links that the moderation team had already disallowed.

 


Expanding on this just a little, I equated Cheya’s absolute nonsense article which claimed that taking the vaccine would give you AIDS and cause you to die within maybe six months (erroneously based on waning efficiency of the vaccine over 6 months), with the idea that the vaccine would turn you gay. Cheya made some comment about my ‘made up vaccines make you gay stories’, so I posted the links to the LGBTI site which carried and ridiculed two of the claims, plus a third news link also ridiculing the claim. 
 

I was then banned by Cheya from any further posting in her thread, and you have  consistently assumed that the sites were homophobic, even though I already posted earlier in this thread that they were pro-gay sites. I think you should read the links, you will probably enjoy them. 
 

When Steve posted a comment on Cheya’s rubbish article he stated that there was no difference between saying the vaccine gives you AIDS and that the vaccine makes you gay. Cheya’s article really was that bad. 

 

Quote

 

Have any of your posts in Cheya´s threads been hidden, ralis?  I think it safe to say that Cheya has disagreed with you on occasion but, to my memory, has not used her moderation powers to silence your views.


I was edited on at least three other occasions because Cheya didn’t like my comments. I recall one was me saying that if she checked the facts before posting there wouldn’t be such overwhelming amounts of misinformation being posted, and that as it was it was just lazy conspiracy cut and pasting. 
 

More recently I questioned whether any of you actually understood how to interpret data, after Cheya posted this particular vaccines gives you AIDS article was worth reading, and you and Taomeow ‘liked’ it. My question  was  deemed offensive and edited by Cheya, but I’ve been thinking about it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that you, Cheya and Taomeow  really don’t know how to analyse and interpret data, because a lot of what has been posted by Cheya and liked by you and Taomeow was glaringly inaccurate manipulation of data. 
 

I can’t remember my further edited comments or hidden posts at this point. 
 

 

Edited by Bindi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read others reports of what you supposedly posted , I thought  " That doesnt sound like Bindi ."

 

After your clarifications it seems my thought was right .    

 

There is a 'slanty'  view coming into some of these comments about moderating this subject . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites