This was an interestingly selective deletion on the askme Ron Paul thread, no? [more inside]
This post which raised the issue of fears among some in the African-American electorate that Barack Obama would not be safe as president. The thread was shut down for reasons of WTF. Not exactly sure what the problem was, and I was disappointed, as I had recently heard about this and was hoping the thread would shed some light on the issue. This NYT article would be a good starting point for discussion.
This post was deleted for the following reason: LOL BUSH IS TEH ANTICHRIST. whatever Care to translate that into an intelligible rationale? I didn't say Bush is the anti-Christ, violate Godwin's Law, or anything else. I thought the article made an interesting link between mental illness and certain political attitudes. But is there a daily limit to the number of FPPs perceived as "anti-Bush", or what? Help me out.
Alright, this is just lame -- I asked a very specific question related to the election and it got deleted. I wanted to find a capsule summary of how Rush and Hannity were playing post-election as Wednesday programming opened. If my post is considered too redundant or inflammatory, fine, but telling me to go listen to the radio is kind of callous and rude. I said I missed the coverage and as it is, out where I live I don't even know if we get the shows. You all don't have to repost it; but I'm just kind of teed off.
So have we really reached the point where posting a direct quote from the President is considered too vile a slander to let stand (twice)?
OK Matt : I took your deletion of my previous two posts on this subject, the 2004 election controversy ( and probably several by other folks ) as an indication that either 1) you oppose posts on the election controversy or 2) you want quality posts. Since I don't like to think of you as a site manager inclined towards censorship, I took the deletion of those posts as an indication that they weren't of sufficient quality. So, I addressed #2 : I thought that was a high quality post - well substantiated, and which presented an angle not yet discussed or noted elsewhere on the net. If you are opposed to discussion of the 2004 election, why not state that in your posting guidelines ? I feel that would be more helpful. Otherwise, new users may be confused for those unspecified posting categories which you are inclined to delete.
OK, I might sound like a whiner, but I gotta ask. Why did my post to this letter get deleted while the Neal Pollack stuff stays up? Too incendiary?
Matt's deletion of this particular smudge of excrement drives home a point: for the most part, I feel that we don't do political discussion well. Anyone care to recommend some other sites better suited to political wrangling? I'll start with Poliglut.