Couldn't be bothered to find my mod objections

[Tails82]

Well that was quick. 2-3 minutes around 1am. How quickly can someone read, mark and have a mod put this through the queue? Faster than the parties involved could read it, let alone make a decision...

Speaking about Roy Moore

All it takes is one Project Veritas expose - workers admitting to collusion with Team Hillary - and there you go. We already know at least one accuser has been photographed with Hillary, Biden etc. and made several messages about wanting to impeach Trump, destroy Republicans, etc. and then started to take it down and cover it up when people pointed it out.

"What frustrates me most about this is that Doug Jones is actually one of the best people Alabama has produced. Immediately upon becoming AG he reopened a old church burning case. He threw elderly kkk members in prison like they always deserved."

It's great that Doug Jones knows how to take softball cases where he takes on elderly racists. The thing is, there are more difficult issues that require more thought and actual effort to stand up against the corrupt establishment - something Roy Moore has done all his life even as they've sought to ruin and destroy him, while Jones is a total caver. As one Moore supporter put it, dating doesn't hurt females, but abortion kills them, and Jones supports abortion right up to birth. These policies have murdered far more people than the KKK ever has, or ever will.

Doug Jones also stepped in it big time when he said he openly supported the bathroom bills, which the left knows that many will take as predator-enabling, so they had to find some way to make up something about Moore that would look worse. If this Hillary-fan smearjob doesn't stick, they'll claim Moore killed somebody 50, 60 years ago. There's no lie the press won't tell - nothing's beneath them, because they're rock bottom.

"This is why Obama did not threaten lawsuits over the birther nonsense"

Obama didn't file because he had something to hide.

"No way in hell would such a suit succeed in this case. This isn't like the Rolling Stone case at all."

Hulk Hogan won even when those guys had actual tape on him.

It's probably the abortion thing, or it could be the whole thing, who knows. We'll find out.

[Tails82]

10 bucks says it's Raptor being his usual dickish self - only one of the usual bunch who has been active in the past hour, and directly modding people when he's in one of his moods is his regular practice. Little keyboard warrior coward.

[Tails82]

Last message used as an excuse to take this down

Hearing voices? Moore accuser claims she was called on phone that didn't exist

...This is specifically how she claimed to make contact with him in every instance. Her own mom debunked it:

www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/11/12/exclusive-mother-roy-moore-accuser-contradicts-key-detail-daughters-sexual-misconduct-story/

"Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Misconduct Story

Speaking by phone to Breitbart News on Saturday, Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.

The Post story relies heavily on Corfman’s memory and her ability to recount events consistently.

The newspaper reported that “Corfman described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post”...Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions.

Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly.

Corfman described her own troubled background to the Post, including three divorces, bankruptcies and a history of drug abuse.

"She says that her teenage life became increasingly reckless with drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt when she was 16.

"She has had three divorces and financial problems. While living in Arizona, she and her second husband started a screen-printing business that fell into debt. They filed for bankruptcy protection three times, once in 1991 with $139,689 in unpaid claims brought by the Internal Revenue Service and other creditors, according to court records."

Gee, wonder why she wanted to make some money off the media interviews...

This and the other one make 18kl, all "offensive."

Chilling effect to keep me silent until the Alabama election is over.

gamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com/2017/11/terrible-gamefaqs-mods-censor-views.html

[Tails82]

MEANWHILE, actual topic titles on 261 right now

"Franken photo MAY have been doctored"
"in defense of Franken, there's nothing wrong or untoward with grabbing breasts."

What bias?

[Tails82]

We'd gain a lot more than we'd lose. I'm thinking go back to the old process for senators and drop the modern income tax. The biggest drawback would be the loss of presidential term limits, but the federal government would be far more restricted and crippled overall so it'd be worth it.

3kl offensive

You said on 12/11/2017 11:29:40 PM:
There's 3 things I've mentioned and none of them are offensive. Neither is the concept of calling to undo amendments, like this country has done with Prohibition (and imo, calls to change/undo the amendments to the Bill of Rights are more offensive, but never have been a moddable offense on that board). More biased modding.

[Tails82]

I got 4 notifications today and none of them a moderation. C'mon guys, my latest rant against Obergefell has been up for 24 hours. Tick tick

[Tails82]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/cdc-troops-anti-hiv-drug-prep

"CDC: More soldiers should be on anti-HIV meds

The number of people in the military taking the drug, known as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, or PrEP, has surged to 2,000 as of last year, but the agency estimates that based on sexual behavior and other risk factors, 10,000 more should be taking it.

The number of people in the military who take the medication, often referred to by its brand name, Truvada, began surging after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2011.

The CDC revealed that 350 people in the military become HIV-positive every year, and most are infected while they are in the U.S.

In the military, the virus is more common among black men and among men who have sex with men.

Truvada...costs the military $12,000 a year per each person who takes it. If the number of prescriptions were to rise to the amount the CDC is recommending, then the drug costs to the government would total $140 million a year.

That amount is lower than paying for more incidences of HIV infection. The typical treatment, through regularly taking antiretroviral medications, can cost $450,000 annually per person."

Meanwhile, Russia and China are spending on hypersonic weaponry...

Trollin'

A Mod/Admin said on 5/26/2018 1:03:43 AM:
This article misrepresents the original CDC findings.

You said on 5/26/2018 10:00:24 PM:
I find it hard to see how I misrepresented an article I quoted from extensively, and almost entirely. Particularly when both the CDC and article say "began surging after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2011."

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6720a1.htm

Maybe it's an opinion you don't like, but I misrepresented nothing.

[Tails82]

Gamefaqs said I 'misrepresented' the CDC. So I went looking...

...and I'm actually more disgusted with the details. I still believe that absolutely nothing was wrong with my previous source, but since they objected: here's the direct source, and some additional info:

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6720a1.htm

"The maximum estimated annual cost of PrEP to the military health care system is substantial, and new prescriptions for PrEP are expected to continue to rise...In addition, indirect costs associated with HIV-infected personnel who are prohibited from combat deployment might have substantial impact on military unit readiness and ability to accomplish specific missions.

"285 (37%) had at least some college education. The indication for initiating PrEP was most commonly sexual contact with men (87%) and condomless sex (73%); 30% reported exposure to sexual partners with known HIV infection."

The VA is already overstretched, and has failed so many veterans who have been wounded on the battlefield. Knowing this, why in the hell should taxpayers be forced to prioritize people who knowingly have sex with others who have HIV? Especially college-educated who should know better. This can ruin a person's life to the tune of $450,000 - and if someone doesn't like to bring this topic up, too bad for them. This is too harmful and costly to ignore. I'm going to criticize any day of the week.

Warned offensive

A Mod/Admin said on 5/27/2018 7:46:55 AM:
You will continue to be moderated if you continue to imply that any man who has sex with another man is 'knowingly having sex with others who have HIV'. This is you generalizing homosexual men as inherently having HIV and that is an offensive stereotype that will not be allowed here.

ctrl+f "gay"
ctrl+f "homosexual"

Didn't find it, did you? Yes, they continue to make up things which I never said.

So first off, they lied. But second, why is it any of their business if I did? Why do these fascist, bigot mods attack people for their fact-based arguments, in order to defend their special groups? Are LGBT these special god-kings who can do no wrong and all criticism is prohibited?

As someone pointed out in that topic before it was closed, there's the HIV-positive movement now, which thinks it's fine and dandy to knowingly pass HIV on to other people and damage their lives. Why is that opinion acceptable on Gamefaqs, but my criticism of it is not? I have not given a single person HIV. I have only criticized those who have. Why do gamefaqs mods attack ME when I'm in the right?

You said on 5/27/2018 2:14:06 PM:
So in other words, I was correct. You didn't have an objection with the source, you just didn't like the facts.

Why not debate like anyone else if you disagree? I suppose it's because that would require taking a stand for something, rather than hiding behind anonymity. Now, I understand why the person in question doesn't want to play defense for HIV/AIDS on a forum where they would be held accountable for what they say - but that simply means that the person should re-examine their own flawed and gravely incorrect worldview, not sweep under the rug those who are right. I do believe an apology is in order.

As for me, I will never apologize for wanting to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS - and this site continues to remain an embarrassment to the internet when they continue to actively fight against those who do.

This is my selection from the rest of that topic, for the quote file. As usual the left had no actual points to make because they know that they are wrong. So they attacked the messenger:

"Can you go somewhere else? Like... hell? Or the bottom of a very deep pit? On Mars?" -wally

"Imagine being Tails and not killing yourself." -squareandrare

"i think the world would be better off without people like tails but i don't think he deserves to die. if anything i suspect living with himself is the greater punishment in any case." -Tamamo-no-mae

And would you be surprised to know that the former mod never gets his messages taken down, even if it's nothing but attacks on other people and contributes nothing of value to the conversation? Would you be surprised to know it never happens? Of course you wouldn't, because it's Gamefaqs.

The rest of the topic, aside from one or two people who condemned knowingly spreading HIV to other people, was liberals intentionally trying to derail the topic with cake emojis.

Maybe one day there will be liberal arguments to be seen, aside from namecalling and censorship, but don't hold your breath. As you can see, they only continue to prove my point about everything. This is what liberalism stands for. This is liberalism. There is absolutely nothing to be had in their arguments - intellectually, morally - nothing at all to contribute. It is totally bankrupt.

Now you can see why I (and a lot of other people) spend a lot less time on failing gamefaqs these days. I need an actual challenge! Going there is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Tails82]

A Mod/Admin said on 5/27/2018 6:26:12 PM:
You've run a virulently anti-gay gimmick for years. That's not permitted no matter what twisted ways you try to justify it. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

You said on 5/29/2018 10:25:56 PM:
That's great and all, but in order for that to be the case, doesn't there actually have to be a comment against homosexuality? Something that is not here. To the extent my comments criticized anyone, they were against censorship and against someone who intentionally transmits, or risks transmission of HIV (a position which I don't think is controversial by any means).

What you WILL see in this message is the following:

1) the removal of any mention of DADT by me (it remains unquoted within the link because, you know, that's what the data actually said - nothing was misrepresented, as a mod falsely claimed the first time)

2) the removal of the previous "misrepresented" article, which was apparently the reason given for the previous moderation (not the actual reason, as we've now seen), but I replaced it anyway by direct link to official government data

3) voluntary topic lock by me once this point had been made, with no intention to aggravate the board or continue the personal attacks that were being made in that topic (not by me, but by others against me).

Having met the previous conditions set by the last mod and taking care of the issue myself, it'd seem that there would be no need for moderators to step in, in what amounts to punishing someone for linking to official government data. I can do everything a moderator says and do everything in my power to present the facts directly and honestly, as I did with that topic.

However, what cannot be helped are measures against imagined mod arguments such as "you implied" or "you secretly meant this," which are BS excuses that can be made up and used for upholding almost anything. For example, I could assume from the mods' tone-deaf lack of reading comprehension that I am dealing with "implied" heavy drug users. But just like when false assumptions are applied to me, it would be wrong and unprofessional to reach that conclusion. Besides, I find the truth here to be more absurd than any fiction.

What this amounts to is a moderation over imaginary reasons, the removal of official government data from a topic that had been locked anyway, just because someone did not like the data - after I had already met a mod's conditions and removed my references to it, plus changed the source entirely. If you'd read almost every other post in that topic, it's obvious that these moderations come about due to personal grudges other people have against me.

Part of the reason why that board is such a mess is because moderators enforce those grudges and punish people who post facts. It's no wonder that only the most poisonous messages stick around because most everyone else reasonable has either been modded or driven off by the most hostile ones.

No matter how much it bothers them (I have no idea who "they" are, as I don't vindictively track accounts like they do when they celebrate how easy it is to abuse the moderation system against their enemies on CE), I can't apologize for posting what I know is official CDC data - but I do know it's possible for a mod to apologize and overturn a warning that's been handed out over nothing. I've seen it happen before. So who knows, maybe we'll see it again, or maybe we'll see people dig in over the idea that nobody is allowed to criticize someone who intentionally exposes someone else to HIV.

[Tails82]

A Mod/Admin said on 6/4/2018 7:55:15 AM:
I'm more offended by this comment than anything else:

"Knowing this, why in the hell should taxpayers be forced to prioritize people who knowingly have sex with others who have HIV? Especially college-educated who should know better."

This comes across like these individuals should be denied healthcare services. No where in that article linked did I read that people are knowingly or wanting to get infected with HIV.

- "prioritize" is the key word here. No mention of denial (which happened plenty of times to people with war injuries in Obama's VA, and this denial is actually what I'm opposed to here)

- Also note "knowingly or wanting to get infected with HIV," while it does happen (and California defends it), is not the same as "knowingly have sex with others who have HIV." But either way, the cost ends up as $425,000 per lifetime or $12,000 a year plus being undeployable, which any sensible person would question when both situations are easily preventable.

We're *still* waiting on dispute #1.

[Tails82]

2 weeks later

A Mod/Admin said on 6/9/2018 12:21:01 AM:
You should probably keep your homophobia to yourself.

[Tails82]

Note the time compared to the last moderation, AGAIN, about one month apart - shortly before previous warning leaves my history. One of the mods goes through my messages and looks for some excuse to extend it.

Meet the 50,000 DACA criminals let in by Obama

This is pre-DACA order. Doesn't count crimes afterward. Obama's "best and brightest":

www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/06/18/dhs-factsheet-shows-1000s-daca-crimes/

Obama Admin Approved 50,000+ DACA Amnesty Applicants with Criminal Records

Those details were hidden by Obama’s deputies, who also hid information about the DACA illegals’ education credentials and work histories.

They hid it because none of it was good...

17,079 DACA recipients have been arrested more than two times...DACA-approved people have been arrested for ten murders, 31 rapes, 95 kidnappings, 187 robberies, 425 hit-and-runs, 2,007 assaults, 4,611 drug offenses, 6,629 thefts, plus many crimes related to their illegal status — 11,861 immigration crimes and 20,926 non-DUI driving-related offenses...

Obama’s deputies were very forgiving of the crimes. For example, 2,503 people with arrest records for battery were allowed into the amnesty. So were 2,378 DUI drivers, 6,629 thieves, and 1,173 burglars.

Overall, 70.8 percent of applicants with one arrest were approved for the amnesty, as were 59.9 percent of people with two arrests and 51.7 percent of people with three arrests. One-third, or 33 percent, of applicants with eight arrests were included in the amnesty, as were 18.8 percent of people with a record of 10 or more arrests.

We are not just dealing with a political party here. We are dealing with an international criminal cabal.

As usual there is absolutely no reason for a moderation, other than these are facts they don't like and some liberal mod disagrees with me.

[Tails82]

A Mod/Admin said on 6/25/2018 9:06:48 PM:
Referring to the Obama Administration as an international criminal cabel is blatantly offensive. Don't do that.

That's a 15kl for offensive. Because nobody has ever said anything bad about the Trump administration.

Aside from that, this is where that reading comprehension part comes in (they constantly seem to fail this): I did not refer to the Obama administration as a criminal cabal, even though you could make the argument. I implied the Democrat party politicians, recent-past and present, is part of one. So they'd probably still be offended by that, but at the very least they could get it right.

[Tails82]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/25/ann-coulter-central-park-rapists-trump-right/

That's it. "Trolling"!

A Mod/Admin said on 7/29/2018 7:32:41 AM:
DNA evidence cleared these people. Making a topic claiming that they were still actual criminals is disingenuous and trolling.

You said on 7/29/2018 9:23:15 PM:
If a mod would like to read the article, particularly the "DNA evidence didn’t convict them" part (all that other stuff did), you would see that this is additional evidence recently released to the public, and was convincing enough for 2 juries.

While the mod's at it, they might also read the plain text of the terms of use for what this moderation covers:

"Trolling is not someone posting an opinion that differs from yours...although it may not be popular opinion. Even if you disagree, you can either debate the user on their points or just ignore it."

I also take issue with the argument: "DNA evidence cleared these people," which is problematic given the reasons laid out within the article itself, as well as confessions and all the other evidence. Absence of DNA evidence from a few samples, from an early era looking back decades at this point, makes for a weaker case in retrospect but does not undo all that other evidence.

"Making a topic claiming that they were still actual criminals" is not something I did, seeing as I posted an article without commentary.

But either way, we are currently talking about a Politics board where everyone is throwing out left and right "lock her up," "treason" and "Russia," calling people criminals without any evidence there. I think there's a much stronger case to be made against convicted rapists, and 2 juries agreed.

If a mod would like to debate me on this, the proper place to do it is on the board like anyone else and not in a dispute form.

[Tails82]

A Mod/Admin said on 7/29/2018 9:54:52 PM:
Breitbart is known for posting conspiracy theories and inaccurate reports based on political views which appears to be the case here. The Supreme Court of New York County properly tried this case and acquitted all of them to which you can read below:

wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/13023/13335893/downloadables/NYDA%20motion%20in%20Jogger%20case.pdf

Whatever political opinion may exist to have such an article exist, it bears no weight in the realm of the judicial branch. Hence your topic was deleted for trolling.

You said on 7/31/2018 8:20:04 PM:
So, to unpack what has been argued by mods in dispute:

1) A blanket ban (or at least, a pre-formed prejudice and mistrust) exists against a news outlet that has previously surpassed both the Washington Post and Huffington Post in terms of mainstream audience, but is nevertheless called a "conspiracy" source for bringing up valid evidence reported at a trial;

2) A nationally-prominent commentator's writings are to be banned from the site, not because of the content, but because the article was syndicated through an outlet a mod didn't like;

3) the posting of any opinion piece would apparently not be allowed if the article disagrees with the judicial branch in any way (the same branch that has found both for and against in this case, so you tell me how that works).

Unsurprisingly, none of this is in the written terms.

We're also going to ignore all the other times people have disagreed with any branch of government - which is kindof a big thing on a politics board - and exclusively go after this one because hey, this is Gamefaqs.

Also left unsaid is why the mod apparently thinks he has all the facts, but instead of posting them like anyone else, decides it's his job to harass the user and take the entire discussion down, to the benefit of no one.

Please step down, as it's clear your pattern is abusive, biased and reflects no understanding of politics or civility whatsoever.