Further guidance on faith/race issues

Information about this forum including ideas for site development and member collaboration, legal threats, outages, alternative sites, posting rules & how and when to contact moderators/admins.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Further guidance on faith/race issues

Post by ian neal »

Having discussed this with several key campaigners and moderators, I have been asked to propose some fuller guidance from the 'moderators' on what 'we' consider to be offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence.

In a nutshell, this guidance is that

posts which refer to jews (people of the judiac faith) in any way that is less favourable than non jews (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

In the same way that to refer to muslims in any way that is less favourable than non muslims (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

In the same way that to refer to Christians in any way that is less favourable than non Christians (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

In the same way that to refer to a Tutsi in any way that is less favourable than a Hutu (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

In the same way that to refer to 'black' people in any way that is less favourable than 'white' people(and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

In the same way that to refer to gay people in any way that is less favourable than straight people (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

Etc. You get the idea.

On the other hand you can be as rude as you like about fascists, war criminals and those who knowingly conspire with them.

All moderation decisions are subject to appeal.

Further the moderators request that posters focus on 9/11 and issues directly relevent to 9/11

Obviously what is considered directly relevent to 9/11 is open to interpretation and balance and will be defined over time.

This certainly includes the wider war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, 7/7 and other allegedly 'al qaeda' or al qaeda 'inspired' attacks, erosion of civil liberties, extraordinary rendition, the Impeach Blair campaign and media reporting of the 'War on Terror'.

It will include a degree of relevent historical context: such as operation gladio, Iran Contra, Skull and Bones, CIA criminality, the rise of 'Islamic fundamentalism' and so forth.

However it will exclude discussion of holocaust revision, ascended masters, UFOs, 2012, numerology, lizards, moon landings and so forth unless a direct connection to 9/11 can be demonstrated.

It is the decision of the moderators that discussion of issues such as these that do not relate directly to 9/11 (regardless of any merits they may have) is counter-productive to the campaign's aims. There are several other sites that provide a forum that is both sympathetic to 9/11 truth and tolerant of a wider range of topics. One such example is www.illusionsforum.com and there are others.

Feedback welcome
Last edited by ian neal on Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jim
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: London

Post by Jim »

What about David Icke? lol
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Post by ian neal »

JHR wrote:What about David Icke? lol
David's views on 9/11 and things directly related, absolutely.

His views on lizards no.
Post Reply