I see that you have changed the subject to the one discussed on the bin Laden thread before I was silenced, a different one: The discussion here has been of the ethics of the silencing and its sequel, not of "blowing off steam," as I'm sure you know.
It is an interesting subject, though.
To respond substantively to your characterizations, I would have to go back and analyze how the discussion developed. I am not prepared to do that, so I won't respond more substantively than to say I agree with your point as made if it is accurate.
I point out that when one poster is being posted to by several people, that one person, attempting to reply to the many posts made to her, will tend to post more times than anyone else. I am often one-against-a-group, and have been on more than one occasion bemused at the members of the group not understanding this arithmetic, and waxing indignant at the greater number of my posts.
I was having a discussion about the dangers of chilling free speech. It seems an unexceptionable subject, and the venue seemed appropriate. If the subject is boring or unimportant, I apologize. If the venue seems inappropriate to you, well, that's what's termed a judgment call.
I have no problems with being banned. I have a problem with being banned in an intellectually disreputable and ethically coarse way.
You defend the way it was done, and that is your right. |
