PDA

View Full Version : Is this what it's come to .... AGAIN???



Gos
May 14th, 2009, 02:21 PM
This morning, I received the following email from "jogolden":



Gos,

I wrote a thorough reply to your comments that I read on AME as well as others and even updated on the woman in my group. None of it was posted because all of it was inconvenient to hear. If the truth is on the dissident side, why fear the information I put forth?

What I will not do is participate in a one sided debate whereby I am asked to keep an open mind and read what others comment but when I try to reply with comments and questions of my own, they're blocked.

This is NO different from what the dissidents claim the orthodox does to them - which is more than ironic, it's pathetic!

I don't mean to take this out on you, truly. I realize you want to actually have open dialogue but it's clearly futile.

All I can say is beware - you're all allowed such censored information by the moderators.

Be well.

Jo



Jo is 100% right -- it's not only ironic, it's pathetic. If we've got the truth on our side, then someone like Jo is no threat. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we should welcome honest questioners like her with open arms, because they give us the chance to present our case to non-dissidents.

But instead, we act like a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists, attacking people like Jo for asking valid questions, and censoring them outright if they persist. I've said it before and I'll say it again: These are the tactics of the orthodoxy, and we should let the orthodoxy KEEP them.

And to add insult to injury, apparently some of Jo's posts that were censored included updates on her sick friend's condition. I don't know whether or not any of the moderators here care about sick people who may well be dying of what the orthodoxy will call "AIDS", but in my opinion such patients should be our primary reason to participate in discussions about AIDS, if not our ONLY reason. I for one was waiting anxiously to hear more about Jo's friend, and I feel personally offended that such information has been withheld from me.

I don't freakin' believe it -- it's the Biolad fiasco all over again. Has nothing changed in my absence?

TO THE MODERATORS: I would like to remind you that I have returned to AME at the request of numerous AME members, including at least one of the moderators. I would also like to remind you that it's just this sort of BS that caused me to resign in disgust 18 months ago.

So if I've worn out my welcome here, please feel free to demonstrate that fact by censoring or deleting this post.

--- Gos
--- gos@nerosopeningact.com
"Nobody here but us heretics..."

John Bleau
May 14th, 2009, 02:26 PM
I'd be surprised if jo's post was deleted. She had trouble posting earlier.

But if she was censored, I'd appreciate it if the moderators would reconsider.

Gos
May 14th, 2009, 02:39 PM
John,

Do you honestly believe that Jo's earlier problems with posting were coincidental to the fact that she's a non-dissident? I for one have a hard time swallowing that.

But I for one agree with you. If Jo is being censored, I'd appreciate it if the mods would reconsider that decision.

--- Gos

resistanceisfruitful
May 14th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Everyone:

Please relax and know there is no organized (or disorganized) efforts to limit jogolden or anyone else from posting due to their beliefs. This is simply an instance of getting caught up in a technical policy designed to prevent commercial spam.

Nobody is being censored, but there does seem to be some confusion about moderated posts.

First, please read Brian's announcement about spam filtering, which is at the top of every forum page: (link) (http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/announcements.html)

Jogolden's post was being held for moderation because it contained a hyperlink and the user has posted fewer than ten posts. I'm not on AME 24/7 to approve posts, so it can take a few hours to get to them.

Secondly, AME is still adjusting to the new format. I'm new at this and there has been a learning curve to even identify these moderated posts, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. Thanks for your patience.

Finally, just for the record, to the best of my knowledge there has been only one instance of a user being banned from AME at this new location. He is a known anti-dissident and wasn't here to argue or debate, but rather to inflame and disrupt. He runs a blog called dissidents4dumbees and was banned after he revealed his identity in a personal attack against another member here.

Otherwise, the only "power" I've exercised has been against commercial spammers, not any orthodox infiltrators. Does anyone here object to moderation to prevent commercial spamming?

I have suggested to the admins that the threshold for posting with links be lowered. As a moderator, I do not make those decisions.

Personally, I appreciate the comments and dialogue concerning the issue of moderation and have been following it closely. I think the new AME has been, and will continue to be far more open to debate, dissent and discussion than the old moderated format.

resistanceisfruitful
May 14th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Gos,

I'm sorry you feel that way. There was ZERO intent to limit jo's posts. Karri Stokely (who is definitely a dissident) also had problems posting at one point because I did not realize her posts were being held for moderation.


John,

Do you honestly believe that Jo's earlier problems with posting were coincidental to the fact that she's a non-dissident? I for one have a hard time swallowing that.

But I for one agree with you. If Jo is being censored, I'd appreciate it if the mods would reconsider that decision.

--- Gos

Gos
May 14th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Resistanceisfruitful,

If I have misunderstood the situation, please accept my apologies. Perhaps I was hasty in my assessment of things, due to past experiences from the days when censorship was the norm at AME.

I will inform Jo of what you have told me, and hopefully I can convince her to continue her dialogue with us.

In the meantime, is there any way that you can expedite her posts, so that she doesn't feel like she's being censored?

--- Gos

resistanceisfruitful
May 14th, 2009, 05:23 PM
According to her stats, jogolden has posted 9 times so far. Hopefully, after one more post she should be free of the limitations regarding hyperlinks and email addresses.

IF I understand the system correctly, posts from jo or any other registered member will be automatic, so long as the post does not contain any links, regardless of how many posts they have made.

Does that help?

BTW, my friends call me RIF. It's easier to type. You can too. ;)



Resistanceisfruitful,

I will inform Jo of what you have told me, and hopefully I can convince her to continue her dialogue with us.

In the meantime, is there any way that you can expedite her posts, so that she doesn't feel like she's being censored?

--- Gos

Gos
May 14th, 2009, 06:59 PM
RIF,

I have conveyed your message to Jo, including the info that she's only one or two posts away from being able to freely post whatever she wants without it being held for moderation.

Hopefully she will opt to continue her dialogue with us, as the conversation in the "Maggiore/Scovill suit" thread has gotten interesting.

http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5497-settlement-maggiore-scovill-suit-20.html#post33405

--- Gos

whereistheproof
May 14th, 2009, 07:27 PM
this thread shows clearly that other than normal spam procedure this board is not censored.

well done brian and all moderators. i am certain on some orthodox boards this would not be a public discussion. not to mention dissident comments being censored there.

brianozz
May 16th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Folks,

Just to back up RIF's comments, the automatic moderation is pretty much the only moderation we've applied here to date.

Obviously we do delete comments from spammers, but since we turned up the auto-moderation we've had, if I remember correctly, only one (1) instance of a spammer joining, as opposed to 4-5 a week.

We apologize to anyone/everyone who does get their posts moderated, just be patient and they'll appear. It also helps if you read Brian's post at the top of every forum :)

Gos
May 16th, 2009, 05:16 AM
Just to back up RIF's comments, the automatic moderation is pretty much the only moderation we've applied here to date.

I believe you, and let me just say that since my return I've probably had my sensitivity dialed up way too high on the censorship issue, and this was obviously a false positive.

But in the future, just so that people like Jo don't get the wrong impression that their comments are not welcome here, would it be possible to send some sort of auto-notification to them when their posts are held for moderation, telling them the reason? ...Or perhaps would it be possible to include some sort of notification when they join that censorship is not our policy, but that we do take measures to prevent spam? That way, when such situations arise in the future, they are not quite as prone to assume that they're being censored.

--- Gos

brianozz
May 16th, 2009, 07:36 AM
Problem is, such a warning just serves to tip off real spammers as well. We do have warnings at the top of the forums and my feeling is legitimate posters should be able to read those warnings. That sound reasonable or does the community think we do need to adjust a little more?

Perhaps a middle-of-the-road solution would be to put a little more in the signup email?

Gos
May 16th, 2009, 07:55 PM
That sounds reasonable.

--- Gos

Brian Carter
May 17th, 2009, 06:37 AM
Gang..
Ive been away on Business in Las Vegas and I see I have a lot of reading to catch up with when I get back tomorrow.

But please keep this in mind, private e-mails? Well, I'd hope that we refrain from posting them.

Brian