Which version of 'objectionable'? Re: More "the facts" Re: THE FACTS

Jeez V, I know how much you love 'yankin' my chain', but your response borders on silly. (since we all know the level of your intelligence & ability to comprehend).

Your criteria for "objectionable" and the way you've applied it to moderation on the VWT forum, clearly depends upon things like: your mood; whether or not you happen to agree/like the content of the post (no matter how valid their post might be; whether or not you can prove the post wrong or not; whether you *like* the subject matter (nascent forms of iodine, etc); whether or not you like the person posting; whether or not it happens to offend your ego; and of course, whether or not you've been drinking (or you claim to have been drinking...I'm obviously not there to confirm your words).

The TOS definition of "objectionable" (as I've been explained over the years by other moderators) and was recently explained by someone in this thread (or on the debate forum?) is VERY definable...as in no foul language, that type of thing. And even then, a moderator could only *delete* a few letters or words of the foul language or 'TOS Objectionable' content...and MUST make note of that they had edited or hidden the post content.

Your version of 'objectionable' is quite different, and is FAR from being consistent.

Tweet