tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post7867277131778920092..comments2024-03-29T09:11:31.204-04:00Comments on Strict Julie Spanked!: Spanking Blogger's Thoughts on COVID-19juliesphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-37078345249310468782020-12-12T23:38:08.825-05:002020-12-12T23:38:08.825-05:00Getting bored with the crazies. Shutting down comm...Getting bored with the crazies. Shutting down comments. See you next time!juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-50858313763162709952020-12-12T23:36:55.581-05:002020-12-12T23:36:55.581-05:00Section 230 means they are NOT free to moderate co...Section 230 means they are NOT free to moderate content however they want. Or they can give up their section 230 protections and then do what they want. At any rate, platforms should voluntarily adopt free speech principles. Simple.<br /><br />You are taking Milo out of context. You do not include what he said afterwards in response to criticisms like yours. I think that makes you sort of a garbage human being.<br /><br />Gavin is a comedian, and a politically incorrect one at that. He is married to a native woman. He founded Vice. Calling him a racist is a cheap, untruthful shot. Lazy.<br /><br />So you are advocating people yelling to not allow others to speak? You have a deep, deep misunderstanding of free speech.<br /><br />I would spend whatever tax money necessary to protect free speech against the mob.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-83579911555540499812020-12-12T22:56:28.896-05:002020-12-12T22:56:28.896-05:00Wow, Julie, you are on a roll today -- maybe try r...Wow, Julie, you are on a roll today -- maybe try rereading your past statements to avoid direct contradictions?<br /><br />Julie, December 12 at 16:18: "I don't think the government should even censor personal insults because of slippery slope."<br /><br />Julie, December 12 at 22:30: "Free speech is not shouting idiotic slogans while somebody else is speaking and an entire audience is wanting to listen."<br /><br />Another reader tried to explain to you what it means to be a free speech absolutist (and how your own statements contract your claim of being one) with much more eloquence and patience than me. He didn't seem to get across, so I'll just stick to juxtaposing your contradictory statements, to which you will then respond with more contradictory statements... and, who knows, maybe eventually one of them will be clear enough for you to see. Until then: that you can't distinguish actual free speech absolutism from selective Julie-approved free speech views makes you unqualified to have a productive conversation on free speech. :-)<br /><br />As to the $600K: let's imagine that you move to a nice little conservative town. AOC (or pick whichever leftist most annoys you) comes to give a talk that 95% of the population do not care to hear and find downright stupid or offensive, but the other 5% are excited to listen to. The 95% start shouting slogans, and your city council decides -- in an uncharacteristically big-government way, one may say -- to spend $600K of tax dollars on keeping the slogan-shouters out of the way. Would you approve? Or would you say "hey, free market, free speech; let's keep our government small and and not force unrelated individuals' money into this"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-29940591332567995112020-12-12T22:49:07.505-05:002020-12-12T22:49:07.505-05:00I am not defending YouTube in anyway. I am defendi...I am not defending YouTube in anyway. I am defending their right to moderate content on their platform. Just like you can do on here. It is their house, their rules. I do think content has to be moderated to an extent though, but I do agree they can be a little too restrictive. But they have to keep more than a billion people happy, which isnt easy.<br /><br />As for Milo, I searched everywhere for the Drunken Peasant podcast where he said what he said, but those videos are now behind these paywalls. But here is an excerpt from the video where he said what he said: <br /><br />"We get hung up on this child abuse stuff… This is one of the reasons why I hate the left, the one size fits all policing of culture, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent.<br /><br />I’m grateful for Father Michael [a Catholic priest Milo claims to have had sex with as a teenager]. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.<br /><br />Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody who is 13 years old and sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty, who do not have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty.<br /><br />In the gay world, some of the most important enriching, and incredibly life-affirming, important, shaping relationships are between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences very often for those young boys." <br /><br />When he said that, the pod cast hosts were like "Uhhhhhhh....". LOL. Milo just leveraged the right wing outrage culture to his benefit, again went too far with it. He deserved to get booted. <br /><br />About Gavin, I knew you would say it was out of context. I was going to say this before but here we go - Whatever context it is said in, it is advocating violence. The guy is a racist thug. <br /><br />It is free speech to say what you want. Including yell slogans. You dont get to define what is free speech and what isn't. There may have been some isolated incidents of rioting and violence, but in most cases people like petersen and shapiro have been protested against and yelled at. Which is entirely the right of the people. <br /><br />This is exactly why I also called out free speech absolutism before. It doesn't exist. It is always - "I should be able to say what I want and get away with it". It shows a remarkable lack of character and shows cowardice. That you want to say what you want without being held accountable for it. This is why right wingers always lose these social battles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-57258642028278545212020-12-12T22:30:19.159-05:002020-12-12T22:30:19.159-05:00RD - you're actually defending YouTube's c...RD - you're actually defending YouTube's censorship??? You're a lost cause. YouTube is another company enjoying section 230 protection on condition they adhere to the principals of free speech. They are clearly in violation.<br /><br />I find it incredible that you listened to Milo's story of sexual abuse and still think he needs to be deplatformed completely. How insensitive and cruel.<br /><br />And that tweet is a bunch of out of context tweets from a comedian who will not be intimidated by Antifa violence. His explicit platform is against starting violence (but not against finishing it).<br /><br />It's not free speech if you riot to prevent someone else's speech. Free speech is not shouting idiotic slogans while somebody else is speaking and an entire audience is wanting to listen. That you can't distinguish that makes you unqualified to comment. Sorry, I don't make the rules.<br /><br />Who cost Berkeley $600K? Ben or the Antifa rioters? Was Ben and the people who wished to hear him the violent ones? Think about that.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-89405539805053041442020-12-12T22:03:20.678-05:002020-12-12T22:03:20.678-05:00Different anonymous, not Rubber Doll, just someone...Different anonymous, not Rubber Doll, just someone entertained by Julie's inability to see her own inconsistencies.<br /><br />Julie, December 12 12:52: "The "fairer society" you like rejects free speech, puts feelings over facts"<br /><br />Julie, December 12 21:33: "Ben and Jordan were routinely demonstrated against at invited talks at Universities and effectively deplatformed by violent, rowdy mobs of leftists."<br /><br />So make up your mind, Julie. Are we good with (unlimited) free speech or are we not? <br /><br />Hint: answering "yes" means that university students can demonstrate against invited talks they dislike to their hearts' content, without concern for Ben Shapiro's feelings, and universities can exercise their right to free speech by inviting -- or dis-inviting -- whomever they choose. Answering "no" makes it legitimate to worry about EVERYONE's feelings, whether that's Ben Shapiro feeling threatened by "violence" or a teenage surviver of a school shooting. On this personal slope, I personally think the latter is a more vulnerable party -- but hey, feel free to disagree; once you get into the fuzzy-feeling territory that you so firmly entered in your last paragraph, anything goes!<br /><br />P.S. UC Berkeley did host Ben Shapiro for a talk in 2017, spending $600K on security against potential protests. If that many more people want to exercise their free speech against this one person's words, perhaps we should let the free-speech free market clear. As a conservative, Julie, I really hope that you agree that this $600K was an egregious mis-spending of tax dollars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-34143399980774695242020-12-12T21:59:07.400-05:002020-12-12T21:59:07.400-05:00Like I said, its their house, their rules. They ma...Like I said, its their house, their rules. They may want only verifiable information on their platforms. Given youtube's cultural impact, they may feel (and rightly so) that they have more responsibility about the kinds of information that is made available through their platforms. Whatever their reasons, its their house, their rules. <br /><br />And I am not misinformed about those three. I actually watched the full podcast where Milo said what he said. He said he enjoyed it and infact said it wasn't a big deal. Which is outrageous to say the least. So I havent taken my information from any media source in this case - it was straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. <br /><br />And Gavin doesn't advocate violence? Sure, see for yourself - https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1311413755633381381.<br /><br />Jones - I was initially okay with him, even though I believed a lot of what he was pushing was misinformation. But I think he took it too far. And he says he was wrong because he got booted from everywhere. The man is trying to revive his livelihood, so again too little, too late.<br /><br />Again like I said, protests are freedom of speech. People can call them out. And there really has been no violence against those two, unless you call yelling slogans violence. <br /><br />- Rubber DollAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-57238153885183404652020-12-12T21:33:55.378-05:002020-12-12T21:33:55.378-05:00You have not been following events in YouTube. The...You have not been following events in YouTube. They are now outright removing any content that raises any doubt at all as to whether there was fraud in the 2020 election.<br /><br />And my little blog is not the "town square" as Twitter pretends it is, and gets section 230 protection against liability as a result.<br /><br />You are woefully misinformed about Milo, Gavin, and Jones. You are swallowing the narrative of the left hook line and sinker for those cases. Milo was abused by a gay man as a boy and was commenting on it. Gavin never ever advocated violent action, only defence, and is not a white nationalist or a neo-nazi. Jones has never advocated violence against school shooting victims or parents. For a time he questioned the official narrative, and now says he was wrong. Those were excuses to de-platform, and are a slippery slope for wider ranging censorship.<br /><br />Ben and Jordan were routinely demonstrated against at invited talks at Universities and effectively deplatformed by violent, rowdy mobs of leftists. Do your research.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-20615459496950221672020-12-12T18:58:37.452-05:002020-12-12T18:58:37.452-05:00BTW I forgot to mention - protesting against someo...BTW I forgot to mention - protesting against someone else's views is just freedom of speech. You say something, I have a right to call it out. <br /><br />And of the people that you mentioned, they were booted fo the following reasons <br /><br />Milo - problematic views on pedophilia and child sexual abuse<br />Gavin - I am assuming McInnes? - promoting violence against political opponents, white nationalism, neo-nazism.<br />Alex Jones - Promoting violence against victims of school shootings, conspiracy theory pushing <br /><br />Ben Shapiro and Petersen are still on twitter. They are able express their views and still stay on platform. So unless there is a valid reason (like the 3 before), they wont boot you. I fail to see where the problem is here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-42122312495347054592020-12-12T18:36:12.930-05:002020-12-12T18:36:12.930-05:00I will sign my moniker from now on with "Rubb...I will sign my moniker from now on with "Rubber Doll". I am a huge fan of latex. <br /><br />"The idea of the left being against free speech is because they have a habit of protesting and trying to shut down and de-platform" - It is similar to what you are doing here when you dont allow comments. Your house, your rules. Twitter's house, twitter'r rules. That is not a left v right argument. Also I have seen tons of videos about voter fraud on twitter, facebook and other social media. They tag it as "Election fraud is disputed", which is true. It IS disputed. But they dont outright delete it unless it is advocating for violence etc, in which case I think it is justified. The only time they suspend your account, and when it is debatable whether or not they should have taken such action, is when you abuse someone etc - and I agree there are a few cases where even the slightest infraction can lead to a suspension. But then again, twitter's house, twitter's rules. <br /><br />Regarding texas, if they didnt sufficiently demonstrate standing according to article 3, then the case lacks enough merit to be heard.<br /><br />- Rubber Doll.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-69190657543216701872020-12-12T17:55:53.140-05:002020-12-12T17:55:53.140-05:00Hint: sign the bottom of your comment with a monik...Hint: sign the bottom of your comment with a moniker of some sort.<br /><br />I think the substantive ideal of free speech is something all of us can and should embrace on our platforms. The idea of the left being against free speech is because they have a habit of protesting and trying to shut down and deplatform. People such as Milo, Gavin, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson. YouTube right now is censoring any videos about election fraud in a move cheered by the left. All the media and social media censoring allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden, but not so with proven disinformation about Trump(fine people hoax, russiagate).<br /><br />On texas there was a decent argument for standing, but most scholars agreed it was not strong enough. It was a step that needed to be taken, though. You are now confusing merit with standing. They only ruled on standing.<br /><br />juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-62500318487808051452020-12-12T17:32:31.100-05:002020-12-12T17:32:31.100-05:00Oh and I forgot to mention, regarding the texas ca...Oh and I forgot to mention, regarding the texas case - they needed to demonstrate standing. They werent able to. Now before the scotus hears a case, they are going to ensure that the case you are seeking to be heard demonstrates substantial merit. If they coudlnt demonstrate that of course the court is going to deny it. Didnt the legal team thing about that when they filed the case? Of course they did and they went ahead with it anyway, which leads me to think it was just performative for the benefit of the president. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-42019303467213235962020-12-12T17:24:45.454-05:002020-12-12T17:24:45.454-05:00Both anonymouses are the same person lol.
Anyway...Both anonymouses are the same person lol. <br /><br />Anyway, I am not talking about you personally. There are two parts to this - this blog is not a free speech absolutist platform, especially since it is "your house, your rules". So by nature, it is not free speech absolutist, and I dont disagree with that. I'd do the same thing. I am however talking about this general idea that exists on right wing media that left wingers are somehow anti-free speech and authoritarian, which is what you are expressing when you are talking about left wingers/liberals. That is not true. Infact it is right wingers that tend to be authoritarian by virtue of their beliefs and what they advocate for. <br /><br />Regarding voter fraud, when you ask the court to take up your case, you have to show what evidence you have to present should the judge allow you to proceed with the case. The trump/texas legal teams werent able to present any existence of such evidence. You dont tell the judge, lets go to trial, and we will present evidence then. It doesnt work that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-63482238557931684762020-12-12T17:18:10.584-05:002020-12-12T17:18:10.584-05:0017:07 anonymous - please call out where I have sub...17:07 anonymous - please call out where I have substantially curtailed someone's free speech on this platform. I mean, if I was so inclined, you would think I would start with you, as you are such a powerful opposing mind, no? :-)<br /><br />17:09 anonymous - My head is hurting from trying to follow your mental gymnastics. For you others out there, this is what "cognitive dissonance" looks like. The supplicants wished to produce evidence in court, but the judge would not hear the case, therefore no evidence was presented in court, therefore it makes it harder to asses the truth or falsity of it. Read the Texas case filing to the supreme court. Choc-a-bloc with evidence.<br />juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-90874744699749384912020-12-12T17:09:50.415-05:002020-12-12T17:09:50.415-05:00"Once again, evidence was not presented in co..."Once again, evidence was not presented in court and cross-examined." - correct. That is what I have been saying. Evidence was NOT presented. Therefore nothing to cross examine. Therefore case dismissed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-48356407211078261402020-12-12T17:07:56.645-05:002020-12-12T17:07:56.645-05:00What you accuse left wingers of doing, is exactly ...What you accuse left wingers of doing, is exactly what right wingers do. In the guise of "expressing an idea" they engage in personal attacks, malicious hate speech etc and when called out for it, (called out mind you, not censored), they will accuse of you curtailing free speech. Essentially when a left winger exercises their freedom of speech, the right winger's free speech is curtailed apparently. So again - "I am not allowed to say what I want and get away with it". <br /><br />The fact that you dont see the hypocrisy in this is what is actually sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-89948933841782677672020-12-12T16:46:03.754-05:002020-12-12T16:46:03.754-05:00Unfortunately, "free speech absolutism" ...Unfortunately, "free speech absolutism" is the new name for what used to be just known as "free speech". It needs to be distinguished nowadays because of people who are "all for" free speech, except if it hurts the feelings of some intersectional group or other (other than Trump supporters, and white males, of course, open season on them).<br /><br />That you fail to comprehend the difference between censoring ideas, and not publishing a pure personal insult with no other point, is sad.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-12685376297067820892020-12-12T16:42:47.808-05:002020-12-12T16:42:47.808-05:00I admire your persistence, Dan! I especially like ...I admire your persistence, Dan! I especially like how you take such glee every time a Trump-appointed judge fails to take up a Trump case. I think that would be a good reflection on Trump's process for choosing judges?<br /><br />Once again, evidence was not presented in court and cross-examined. There is no talking your way around that. You would think you would want to see one of these cases actually taken up so all that "shoddy evidence" is "destroyed" in a court of law, yet you and yours seem oddly reluctant. Hmmmmmmmm.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-26748030513126642462020-12-12T16:23:30.372-05:002020-12-12T16:23:30.372-05:00That is the problem with free speech absolutism. I...That is the problem with free speech absolutism. It is free speech as long as you are allowed to say what you want. But the same rule doesn't apply to others. Thats why free speech absolutism is really a nothing more than a talking point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-49053355632544932372020-12-12T16:21:31.332-05:002020-12-12T16:21:31.332-05:00The latest example of your misunderstanding regard...The latest example of your misunderstanding regarding the procedural posture of some of these cases happened today. Judge Brett Ludwig tossed out Trump's attack on the Wisconsin election process, stating:<br /><br />“This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”<br /><br />"On the merits" means the ruling was NOT simply on a procedural defect, as you allege has been the basis for all these cases. As the court noted: "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of Law be followed.' It has been." He further noted regarding the "evidence" offered by Trump: “When they are cleared of their rhetoric, they consist of little more than ordinary disputes over statutory construction." Further, “Plaintiff’s Electors Clause claims fail as a matter of law and fact," adding “for the first time in the nation’s history, a candidate that has lost an election for president based on the popular vote is trying to use federal law to challenge the results of a statewide popular election."<br /><br />Judge Ludwig was appointed by President Trump.<br /> Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-62984478317506945382020-12-12T16:02:12.337-05:002020-12-12T16:02:12.337-05:00Well good, that's a more nuanced position. Fro...Well good, that's a more nuanced position. From the evidence I have seen I think there was sufficient targeted fraud to overthrow, concentrated in key Democrat cities. And if you include systemic suppression of lawful checks and balances (observers given meaningful access, signature checks) it's way more than enough, but very hard to prove the impact of suppressing those checks and balances, which is where you need to look at the statistics. I personally think that if the law was not followed in the voting process, those votes need to be thrown out, else no consequences. Like the way evidence is thrown out if not obtained legally (even if indisputably true).<br /><br />I think you make the mistake of cherry-picking bad examples and then drawing a broad conclusion without examine all the allegations. For example, if 100 things are brought, and 95 of them are totally bogus, it says nothing of the other 5.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-1983916461901505522020-12-12T15:58:57.264-05:002020-12-12T15:58:57.264-05:00julie, free speech is free speech. "dumb fuck...julie, free speech is free speech. "dumb fucking redneck cunt" is abuse sure, and ofc doesnt add anything to the discussion. But under a free speech absolutist doctrine, it should be allowed. I dont agree with free speech absolutism - I think to be actually free you dont just have to be free TO do stuff, but also need freedom FROM stuff. Like the abuse above. And you aren't wrong for censoring that. Which is why you in reality are a free speech with reasonable limitations advocate - which is very Canadian of you lol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-60075543081930429062020-12-12T15:49:13.170-05:002020-12-12T15:49:13.170-05:00Julie, I love the way you just kind of make up you...Julie, I love the way you just kind of make up your opponents' arguments for them. It makes it so much easier than addressing what they actually say. First, I promise you, I don't need you to explain to me how US legal procedure works or constitutional doctrines like standing. Second, I have never once said that this or any other election was perfect. No large scale election ever has been or ever will be. Elections are conducted with imperfect voters, imperfect poll workers, imperfect voting machines, etc. Errors can happen at each and every stage of that process. But, errors and imperfections are not fraud, and they aren't material unless they were significant enough to actually change the result. And, that is exactly why when playing to the cameras Trump's lawyers talk about fraud, but when in court where they are subject to possible sanctions, they talk about "irregularities" and do not claim that any such irregularity, if proven, would change the result. While you keep babbling about fraud, in court the lawyers admit that is not what these cases are about and, when pressed, own up that they are either attacking the entire process of mail-in balloting but doing so at the wrong time since they should have challenged them *before* seeing if they liked the result, or they ar pointing not to fraud but to mere "irregularities" that would not remotely add up to a changed result. And, as you point out, their proposed remedy is not to make sure that lawful Trump votes are counted but, rather, to throw out *legitimate* votes on the basis of speculation that some unknown number of votes *might* be illegitimate.<br /><br />The one big exception to the lawyers being far more careful about what they say inside court where they have an obligation not to lie is Sydney Powell. She will be lucky if she has a license once this is all over. Just this morning it was reported that a "military intelligence" expert who provided one of those declarations you keep crowing about was not an intelligence expert at all but, rather, some IT guy who wasn't an expert on anything and whose military background was as a mechanic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powell-spider-spyder-witness/2020/12/11/0cd567e6-3b2a-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html.<br /><br />Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-16821105534201766492020-12-12T15:37:28.689-05:002020-12-12T15:37:28.689-05:00I know you moderate comments because of your comme...I know you moderate comments because of your comment above - "For those submitting unpleasant and insulting comments, please know that I giggle in glee as I hit the delete button. Thank you for the entertainment!". Free speech is not always pleasant. If you are a free speech absolutist, then all types of comments, loony, disgusting or not, should be allowed. You dont necessarily have to respond to any of them, that is your prerogative. Failing that, you are just an advocate for free speech with reasonable limitations. Which I am in complete agreement with. <br /><br />In a court of law it is imperative to be pedantic. There is no room for anything less. I know how you are using it, but how you use it isn't how a court considers what is brought before the bench. Just because you think it is "seemingly credible", doesn't mean it is good enough to be considered for examination in a court. There is a system and a process.<br /><br />Pushing conspiracy theories don't exactly represent a curious or an open mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6831327453963872480.post-24384370398342223852020-12-12T15:28:14.739-05:002020-12-12T15:28:14.739-05:00How do you know I moderate comments? Was one of yo...How do you know I moderate comments? Was one of yours not allowed through? I only moderate the really loony disgusting ones that don't add to the conversion. Was that you? Objectively, most of the comments are from critics. Your argument holds no water.<br /><br />You're being very pedantic about the word "evidence". I use it in the common sense that it is a seemingly credible fact that if true would make a case, but not yet tested in court.<br /><br />Your absolutism about "never happened" and "outright lies" demonstrate you as not an honest broker. Curiosity and an open mind is good.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.com