Monday, October 16, 2006

J-W forum bans another conservative

We received word today that the Journal-World banned yet another conservative from its forum merely for submitting posts from a conservative perspective. A review of engagehorn's posts shows that he violated no rules.

During the several days that engagehorn posted, he was called numerous names by others posters (a violation of the rules). One poster (observer) even offered a veiled threat when he said he would pay engagehorn a visit at his office.

The Journal-World has clearly launched a jihad against conservative posters. Conservatives are banned for engaging in dispassionate, reasoned debate, yet liberals can post almost anything they want and remain on the forum. Here's just one example of a post from a liberal with the user name of xenophonschild:

"Am I the only one on the board to notice a similarity between this 'Pilgrim' and the not-too-lamented Arminianus? Pilgrim was always a dim-bulb fascist, but his most recent incarnation shows unmistakeable traces of the 'hero of Silawa.' Can it be that the liar-maggot Arminianus somehow managed to transmogrify into the malicious twit Pilgrim?"

That is clearly an example of name-calling, yet xenophonschild continues to post.

We received an e-mail from one banned conservative with the unfortunate user name conservativeman. Dan Cox, Director of New Media, e-mailed this poster after the poster requested an explanation concerning his banishment. Here is what Cox wrote:

"You were banned after I was presented with a couple of cases for banning, both of which were not posters who were explicitly in violation of our use policy in matters of insults or name calling. These cases were in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online. Some posters are so egregiously aggressive in posting ideological sentiments of hate filled opposition that community dialogue suffers."

Cox did not tell conservativeman exactly why he was banned. However, reread Cox's staetement and then reread xenophonschild's post. Clearly, Cox employs a blatant double standard when banning posters.

Cox has failed to respond to several inquiries to explain this double standard.

No comments: