I'd like to see the damage portion of your argument - what valid posts have been removed regarding Alefantis?
Edit: ok is it the post you posted in comments? just saw it. Your post is okay but I am not going to lose sleep over it being deleted either - it's nothing with hard evidence. You are basically doing your opinion thing in someone else's litle fiefdom and if the lairds feel like knocking heads around on any given day they do. They seem to not care for anything with a message to the public or PR related in my experience.
Nothing, actually. Absolutely nothing, posted in full with name occlusion to protect the potentially guilty Public Figure/s invovled. After all, "what's in a name?", unless of course one is a clueless and witless moderator.
I would venture that the reason they gave for deleted had nothing to do with the fact he was a public figure. What was the rule they cited? No linked evidence? They use that when they don't like something, it seems squirrely to them, unsupported opinion etc...but they let a LOT of posts go that violate that rule as well. It's hit and miss.
"rule 3" - which did not appear to apply. i did however forget to link to an outside source, so that has been remedied. as well as the "name" of the offending prick, which rhymes with "Achilles", perhaps even on a birth certificate (if we could locate so much as a birth record, for that matter)... so yeah, futzed up it was. I'm still cueing it up to "witless clueless moderator in need of training wheels" tho.
view the rest of the comments →
VieBleu ago
I'd like to see the damage portion of your argument - what valid posts have been removed regarding Alefantis? Edit: ok is it the post you posted in comments? just saw it. Your post is okay but I am not going to lose sleep over it being deleted either - it's nothing with hard evidence. You are basically doing your opinion thing in someone else's litle fiefdom and if the lairds feel like knocking heads around on any given day they do. They seem to not care for anything with a message to the public or PR related in my experience.
yabbadoody ago
regarding WHO?
Nothing, actually. Absolutely nothing, posted in full with name occlusion to protect the potentially guilty Public Figure/s invovled. After all, "what's in a name?", unless of course one is a clueless and witless moderator.
VieBleu ago
I would venture that the reason they gave for deleted had nothing to do with the fact he was a public figure. What was the rule they cited? No linked evidence? They use that when they don't like something, it seems squirrely to them, unsupported opinion etc...but they let a LOT of posts go that violate that rule as well. It's hit and miss.
yabbadoody ago
"rule 3" - which did not appear to apply. i did however forget to link to an outside source, so that has been remedied. as well as the "name" of the offending prick, which rhymes with "Achilles", perhaps even on a birth certificate (if we could locate so much as a birth record, for that matter)... so yeah, futzed up it was. I'm still cueing it up to "witless clueless moderator in need of training wheels" tho.