oh btw chezlaw, on a totally unrelated note.

I didn't know if you were aware or not, but your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.




Your conclusion does not logically follow your premise. Why do you consistently act in an illogical manner?

Let me ask you more specifically about the PC rule. How would you describe the spirit of the rule? Would you agree that this is generally the spirit of the rule?

Yes but the mods also make decisions on which sites to ban links to. Consider that as in addition to your above quote.

I have some sympathy ACEG and don't think you should have been excluded from this thread cos it's bollocks to give someone a timeout from a moderation thread but

isn't the premise of an argument to which

Is a conclusion.

How so?

I dont see any more reasonable alternative if ACEG links to breitbart despite being specifically told not to. Hopefully it wont happen again.

Are you seriously using this word? Is this a joke? It's got to be. It's all a huge joke.


OK chezlaw, you got it. Let's be specific. Let's be VERY specific.



Specifically, you said the following:


And then, you said this:


Which is completely illogical.



And then I claimed Breitbart was not credible because they publish false hoods, provided two examples wherein I cited the original source, in accordance with journalistic standards, and you deleted it, and then started getting all mommy daddy. I asked you why you deleted my post, and you were asked multiple times, by multiple people, SPECIFICALLY















And then you went on to ban me, while I was quoting the only thing that is SPECIFIC about the PC rule; the SPECIFIC right discuss it.



So have at it, chez! We're all waiting to hear you talk all about specifics!

Thing is if this happens elsewhere he brings the discussion here, if it happens here he takes the discussion? In this case I think you should probably look for a different sanction allowing him to discuss that sanction here.

Ahem, she. Her.

And yes, she would very much love to discuss the PC rule, which is what she's been trying to do for the last seventy posts or so. chezlaw has a really hard time answering questions though apparently, and it's really difficult to have a conversation when someone won't bother to answer basic questions about the rules they're supposed to be enforcing fairly

Sorry my apologies.

As I said chezlaw, if you don't want to talk about specifics, then let me ask you what you would say the spirit of the rule is?

and what if ACEG then links to breitbart during that discussion?

The decision by the mods on which sites to ban links to is in addition to the spirit that you quoted.

There aren' t really any more ways I can tell you this. We do ban links to certain sites and breitbart is currently one of those - with regard to breitbart link, that is very very specific by any standards.

Why Breitbart?

You get the idea now? Links to some sites are banned and it's the mods who make the judgement on which ones?

and that that currently and very specifically includes breitbart?

Why Breitbart?

i suggest you reread some of this thread not you have hopefully fully understood that links to breibart are specifically banned. Sorry but othrrwise I think we are going round and round in circles.

I'm semi-grunching and I don't think OP is going this direction, but specifically neo-nazis ARE sorta quaint and irrelevant (they wear bright patches so you can spot them a mile away!). What ISN'T irrelevant are most of the other white supremacist ideologies, which Bannon and Miller et al follow, all the flavors of dominionism and christian identitism and nativism and kinism. But, this is also why Stormfront isn't a neo-nazi website anymore, rather they're a catch-all for everything white supremacist now.

This is really just an aside to prevent any confusion going forward.

Can we see the conversations you two had when discussing and ultimately choosing to ban Breitbart links?


I understand that Breitbart links are banned. Why are they banned? Who's decision was this? What specific conversations was this discussed in?

Great. i'm very happy that you do acknowledge that breitbart links are specifically banned.

No you cannot see our conversations. I can assure you that it was discussed, that we are in agreement and that it is a joint decision.

Are we good with letting monistat spew about the awesome wonders of eugenics, and troll in general, or what?

I would report the posts but it's literally all of them in the trump thread.

Why do you not answer the questions you are asked?

WHY SHOULD IT BE THE DECISION OF JUST THE TWO OF YOU?

hey 5ive, would you like to come chat in ATF 7.0?

That's how it works at 2+2. The mods of each subforum decide matters such as which sites can be linked to or not.

Yes. Bans are issued for minor infractions during discussions of the rules. Bans are not for repeatedly doubling down on precisely the views that removing Breitbart links is supposed to avoid. Being racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, or being pro priest rape, is all still okay under General Pinochez's rules. Just ignore the rules that would the impression otherwise.

That's why ACEG got the honour of Pinochez's first ban, and the usual suspects continue to spew Breitbart-logic everywhere.