|
|
Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS
The only criterion for posts to be
archived here...
Posted By: Zak (159.134.224.217)
Date: 9/13/02 at 7:54 p.m.
In Response To: Re: move to archive, any second? *n/t*
(Pierre)
...is that the post contains a dismissive or offensive comment about me
(or some other poster whose views are contrary to the board's
administrators).
The "skeptics" here (in fact they are dogmatists, not
skeptics) are always quick to attack anyone who disagrees with their
viewpoint, but they themselves will not tolerate any kind of criticism.
Thus, posts which they deem to be supportive of their "position"
(even if these are nothing more than insults or unfounded allegations
against other posters) are promptly nominated for archiving; while posts
in which the argument for "skepticism" are rebutted (or
demolished) are ignored.
Previous posts in which I pointed out this fact, and which I requested
to have archived (because I posted them in threads that were
archived), were never archived. Because, of course, the board's
administrators would like newcomers to think that the people who run this
board are objective, impartial, fair etc., when in FACT archived posts are
carefully selected, and threads censored, to give an entirely false and
misleading impression.
Don't forget to archive this post.
Of course you would like my post
archived...
Posted By: Zak (159.134.227.122)
Date: 9/14/02 at 5:15 p.m.
In Response To: Re: I thought we only archived good
examples of critical thinking (Pierre)
...because that way you can point to it and say, "Look, this guy
is complaining that the archives are censored and biased, but how censored
can it be when we have actually archived his complaint!"
But the fact is that posts consigned to the FACTS archives are carefully
selected and contrived to give an entirely false and misleading impression
- ie, that the resident "skeptics" (ie, dogmatists) are clever
cloggs who win all the arguments, when the truth is that they are a
generally witless and uneducated bunch who are rarely able to defend or
substantiate their views.
What's more, the very fact that you have called for my post to be
archived is underhanded and disingenuous, since it has already been agreed
(or so I have been assured) that when a particular post is archived, the
rest of that thread - ie, all the follow-up posts - will also be archived.
In which case my reply above should automatically be archived, and your
call to have it archived is unnecessary. Is this the case, or is it not?
Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS
arthur@unfacts.org
Last change 16 Sept 2002 am
|