Bob,
You are not being told to keep quiet. You are free to continue on with your valuable insights of Rossi, and everyone, and all things else. Only exception, is I am asking you to refrain from any further criticisms about Alan and his role in Stockholm. Even that is not an attempt to muzzle you, as you have already stated your frustration about that many times over the past year. It is just getting repetitive, and serves no purpose to belabor the point any further, other than to humiliate a Moderator and valuable member of the forum.
It may surprise you, but I was taken to task twice by the Mods before becoming a Mod myself. I simply accepted their role, took it as a lesson learned as to what I could say, and not say, and moved on. Now on to other things.
I have to completely disagree with this. What you are explicitly saying is that if the moderators don't like what someone says, and we are not talking about profanity, ad hominem attacks, doxxing or anything similar, but if the moderators don't like the line of your discussion, you should shut up. I quote your language "took it as a lesson learned as to what I could say, and not say." So, if I am a good little boy (which, trust me, is very unlikely) then maybe someday I can grow up and become a moderator.
I also note your reference to "other than to humiliate a Moderator and valuable member of the forum." One can only be humiliated if there is something about which to be humiliated. Are you saying that you believe AS should be humiliated or that there is something about which AS should be humiliated? I don't, at least not yet.
Bob has been attacked for making a rational, well-reasoned argument. If you disagree with the postulates of his argument, then state your disagreement. But to suggest that he shut up because it bothers you, that doesn't border on censorship, that rides a panzer across the line of censorship.
This approach concerns me that different standards are being applied to certain people. Bob is attacked for revisiting, what to me, is a legitimate issue that has not been resolved (as I discussed in a post above) and is being told to shut up. AA engages in ad hominem attacks, including against me, and, AFAIK, no moderator has told him to shut up. I may be wrong, I hope I am -- but the recent responses to Bob greatly concern me.
I realize that the owner/administrator/the powers that be of this forum have the absolute right to do anything they want here, subject to civil tort law, e.g., defamation, etc., and that, despite what many may believe, there is no First Amendment issue here. But I also believe that the utility, social or personal, of a forum such as this depends on their being allowed a generally free exchange of thoughts and opinions. But if this is going to start only allowing "approved" thought, then this will turn into an echo chamber of no utility or value to anyone.
