General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Given Brian's response it seems clear that it was the content of the post that was the reason for the suspension.It is quite possible that Faith removed the content specifically to obscure that reason.

So long as it is clear that you censored your own post and you are the one that doesn't want readers to see the content.I imagine that we can all draw our own conclusions as to why that might be.

Is the current security good enough to ensure that the email address belongs to the poster ?Because it seems to me that the modus operandi looks more like a troll pretending to be Bakker - anyone can cut-and-paste. And the post-and-run approach means that the poster doesn't have to produce any significant amount of text themselves - avoiding one of the obvious ways in which a fake could be exposed.

There's a difference between the authenticity of the text and the question of whether Bakker is the originator of the posts. If the text was cut-and-pasted from Bakker's work then it would sound like Bakker because he wrote it.The issue of needing access to the email address makes it very likely that it is Bakker. But if all he does is post material he's already published elsewhere then it might as well not be.

I don't object to it. I think of it as a warning label. It's probably better to know that Tal's ignorant, immature and bigoted than not.

The point is not so much to bash Tal as to point out what his .sig says to me. Tal should realist that .sigs usually say more about the person using htem than they do about anything else.