Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SteveTN
You failed to address this point.
Sam Sloan first brought up the post, expressing the opinion that it
should not have been removed.
You didn't see any ethical problems with an opponent of Truong/Polgar
bringing up the topic of this post that was extremely negative toward
Sloan's opponents? Is that correct?
And you did not see any problems with a political member of a
political body discussing the disposition of a post negative to the
opponents of at least two members running for re-election and that
post's disposition by a non-political body?
|
Your point is invalid because I have consistently advocated that ALL
posts should be restored and none should be removed, other than ads
for Viagra and other purely commercial postings.
I used Jerry Hanken's posting as an example because he is a political
opponent and is campaigning actively against me, so I could not
possibly be biased.
Otherwise, I would have brought up Harry Payne's thread which is
perhaps a better example of the problem and still has not been
restored.
Also, as proof that I am not in favor of censorship, you, as SteveTN,
have posted hundreds of attacks on me on my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group and
I have removed or moderated none of them. Phil Innes is attacking me
today and almost every day recently and I am not moderating him. Even
Paul Truong has often posted there under various names and I have
never moderated him either.
Over the past five years since 2002 no posting has ever been removed
from my group except for commercial spam and postings by the one
banned user.
Sam Sloan