Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy
Your example doesn't reflect the reality of that thread.
People weren't making comparisons, they were basically saying that you can't have a negative opinion about Reese Moggs when 'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw.
That thread was a thread about one politician's voting history but it was on the verge of descending into the typical mud slinging match that ruins many threads on this section, that is why those posts were deleted, they were mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. If you wanted to make a comparison about voting histories of both politicians to draw conclusions and parallels between the politicians then that wouldn't have been deleted. Those posts got deleted mostly because they were simply meant to derail the thread from the original discussion.
Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. Why turn every thread into the same argument that you've been having in this one for weeks? It's pointless for every topic to eventually turn into the same old argument.
|
But that works both ways. If you and others had discussed the policies of Reese Moggs instead of slinging inflammatory remarks around initially, then nobody would have felt the need to make similar comparisons to Corbyn - the other side of the coin as a possible future PM.
YOU and others set the precedent and waved the red flag and there is no fair reason then why those posts were removed. I had no intentions of derailing the thread, I was giving MY opinion, which apparently you and others can do, but I and others can't.
If a politician is criticised in a thread and inflammatory language used, it is forbidden to respond to that? To date, I thought it is only members who aren't allowed to be openly criticised. That has now changed.
You were involved in this so can a mod who wasn't please clarify what these new rules are?