There you go. Now which of these were inconsiderate when taken with
the PM that prompted each (which I have not published).

Steve TN

Most of them.

Tim Sawmiller

You refused to wait for the consensus of the FOC, in face of opposite
opinions from your fellow moderators and opposition from just about
everyone with an opinion on this topic, and instead began
inappropriate censorship of on topic discussion.

Steve TN

If moderators wait for a consensus on every issue, then what is the
point of having them?

Tim Sawmiller

However, a decent person will change their actions when confronted
with overwhelming evidence that they should. You haven't, and
further, you have imposed your will despite being shown that your
interpretation has no basis.

Steve TN

So now you are calling me "indecent"? I certainly hope not.

As for having a basis for these actions, I offer this: Within the
last week, a post by Mr. S. Sloan was pulled (not by me) because it
contained a URL to a page that had details only about a chess book.
(I think the reason being that it was now available in paperback).
That was a chess related item, and Mr. Sloan did not recommend buying
it. He just announced it's availability. How is that any different?
I took that as a precedent, along with a close reading of the AUG.
Agree or disagree, there is a basis for that interpretation.

Edit: I see you managed to slip in those pesky URLs again, by quoting
my PMs to you. Would you mind X'ing those out please?

2nd Edit: Point taken.

Tim Sawmiller

What you really did was tell me to remove a link to Susan Polgar's
website because Susan Polgar has commercial ads for her chess books.

As you probably know, I am not in any way financially involved with
Susan Polgar.

Saying that I cannot cite anything posted on her website is absurd and
ridiculous.

Sam Sloan