Before I reply to your post, a disclaimer: I have already read most of this mailing list.
It is a breeding ground for some of Pocock's articles, and is useful in that regard, but the level of trolling he receives is not merely suspect, but *Industrial*. This mailing list is mostly trolls, and I already know them well. I've gone as far as to a book about professional (corporate) trolling. I know your tactics that well. This isn't stated as "proof" of shit, or I would include a link to it. It is merely context. It's amusing that some of you mistake this list for a courtroom where facts are ruled on by an anally-retentive standard of "proof". This is a place for rumours and early warnings, nothing more than that. Pocock may start there and further termine their validity. It's cute the way you try to insinuate yourselves into that process. But such trolling becomes a habit, to the laughable and demonstrative point that if you say "Nice day, isn't it?" someone will leap upon this and say "You can't prove it's a nice day, that is a baseless and unsupported assumption." As you wish, but it's very silly. If any of you gave a damn about censorship, you would likely find the initial presentation of evidence as interesting, you wouldn't jump on it like a pack of hyenas to rip it apart, even if it is (naturally) incomplete. The false assumption is that I came here to prove anything at all. I came to leave the evidence for Mr. Pocock and anybody else who is interested in censorship to do as they please. For you, that is to troll-- and I suspect you will also do as you please. Trolls do not stop trolling just because you satisfy their demands. It's a joke. > Only point 3 is evidenced by your post and, as others post, this is not > censorship even if is a sort of interference with editorial policy. I like that you think a host trying to rewrite or take over "editorial policy" does not constitute censorship, but I suppose that is your own criteria. I suspect there are reasonable people who would not agree with you on that. > Censorship would be taking the original site down. Ah, a bit of No True Scotsman. Lovely stuff. > Compare: is it censorship if a TV network does not continue buying and > broadcasting some bought-in show? Compare: that's a rewording of the false analogy the other troll used. It misses the point, but then that's exactly what you're here to do. Good day all, happy to inform those who *wish* to be informed. Ta!
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
