Inavertantly locked thread?

[True Patriot]

It appears that THIS thread 'Is what ISIS is doing to other Arabs, any worse than...' was inadvertently locked.

Was there a violation of the rules?

I attempted to post additional facts and opinions to my ongoing response to a previous post last night.

I tried to review it this morning and noticed that I had made an error by not including the newest contribution based on my research.

Then I realized that the thread was locked.

I have not received any notification and there is no comment about why the thread was locked in the thread itself.

I would like to include the results of my research and my opinions of them in the thread and to complete my reply to assertions and opinions that were previously made.

Surely, there are people who are interested in understanding the historical facts required in determining the differences between what Isis is doing to Arabs today and what (white) Americans did to indigenous people and people of African decent.

If the thread was locked for a reason is it unreasonable to inquire or expect to be informed why the thread was locked?

[xea989]

It appears to have been flagged as spam by the spam filter as it is two months old. The anti-bump plugin kicks in after 35 days.

[xea989]

Almost 3 months old actually.

[True Patriot]

So will the thread be unlocked so I can fix my last post and continue or should I create another thread referencing the original?

[xea989]

You should still be able to edit your last post.

If not, let me know.

[True Patriot]

Members without moderator powers are not able to reply or edit posts in a locked thread.

[Tim05]

May 5, 2015 8:38:38 GMT -5 True Patriot said:

It appears that THIS thread 'Is what ISIS is doing to other Arabs, any worse than...' was inadvertently locked.

Surely, there are people who are interested in understanding the historical facts required in determining the differences between what Isis is doing to Arabs today and what (white) Americans did to indigenous people and people of African decent.

If the thread was locked for a reason is it unreasonable to inquire or expect to be informed why the thread was locked?

As the thread had not had a reply outside of yourself and Ryan in the House in a month and a half, it is a safe assumption that that bolded text above is incorrect. No one else was interested in the discussion besides yourself and 1 other member. I would recommend moving your discussion to a private message, as it was only a conversation between two people.

[darckonquest]

Blerg, the dreaded automatic filters again...

[True Patriot]

May 5, 2015 11:14:33 GMT -5 Tim05 said:

May 5, 2015 8:38:38 GMT -5 True Patriot said:

It appears that THIS thread 'Is what ISIS is doing to other Arabs, any worse than...' was inadvertently locked.

Surely, there are people who are interested in understanding the historical facts required in determining the differences between what Isis is doing to Arabs today and what (white) Americans did to indigenous people and people of African decent.

If the thread was locked for a reason is it unreasonable to inquire or expect to be informed why the thread was locked?

As the thread had not had a reply outside of yourself and Ryan in the House in a month and a half, it is a safe assumption that that bolded text above is incorrect. No one else was interested in the discussion besides yourself and 1 other member. I would recommend moving your discussion to a private message, as it was only a conversation between two people.

That may or may not be the case, but there may be people, even those who are averse to the truth, who are interested in the subject matter or who may become interested in the subject matter.

What is wrong with a thread being an exchange between two members?
At some point others might be compelled to join in.

There may be those who are hesitant about expressing their opinions because they've observed how those with opinions that differ from the presumed consensus are ostracized.

There may be members who enjoy learning historical facts even if they are less inclined to participate in the exchange.

If this forum is truly interested in diversity, in being tolerant of all points a view and wants to give all of its members an opportunity to express themselves, to share their opinions and what they know, then asking members that you don't necessarily agree with to accept being pushed to the margins and to be excluded from participating in public exchanges, undermines that claim of inclusiveness.

What harm could possibly come from a simpleton sharing their opinions supported by historical facts and data?
If nothing else, it helps those that are not simpletons, presumably like yourself, to recognize those who are.

It seems to me that the best way to expose a fool is to allow the fool to demonstrate how foolish they are for all to see instead of trying to silence them.

I'm nearly certain that if you were the one who had done the research and wanted to share the facts with the group that you might wonder about the intentions of a staff that suggests that you instead only communicate via PM.

Making an assertions like, "At one point, the census shows, the number of enslaved Africans actually usurped the number of free whites" is as easy to post as it is disturbing to read...But is the statement as fact actually true?

Researching into what the actual census showed and finding the statement utterly false takes more time.
Sending a private message to the person who posted the erroneous assertion rather than posting the evidence publicly allows the false statement to stand and assumed to be accurate.
I've always felt that most people prefer to base their opinions on facts, but I'm beginning to think otherwise.

The only way to chip away at generally accepted falsehoods is to present the facts and the data and hope that people will employ their own reasoning to determine if the presumed consensus of opinion is congruent or not with the reality.

Why would any genuinely honest person object to that?

[Tim05]

If you would like more info regarding please feel free to pm a member of the staff

[Ryan in the House]

It was not inadvertent. I requested the thread be locked because of your spamming, self-quoting, and re-quoting of old posts. Here's one example for you: type the words "The depictions of both the Estabrook and the native Americans" in the Search/Find field of your browser and see how many results come up on page three. I'll save you the trouble: it appears five times. Once at the top of the page, when I initially responded to it--and that, under normal circumstances, should've been the end of it--and four other times when you decided to quote yourself and spam it aggressively throughout the rest of the thread. If I had already responded to it, then why repeat it? Further, on April 23, you ignored this post and this post, and changed the course of the discussion entirely by re-quoting old posts from February. Why you, in April, would dig up something from February when I had posts from March 15, March 26, and March 27 waiting for your response is beyond me. Regardless, when it became clear to me that you were no longer interested in responding to my posts and continuing our discussion, I flagged the thread because you had started to sound rather like a broken record.

[A Dream Is A Wish (Old)]

Okay, I am locking this thread. After Ryan's post, I can only see a fight happening and it's better for you to talk privately about it to Christina than to possibly draw in the entire forum with your and Ryan's speculations as to why the thread was locked.

I don't think Ryan's post is why the thread was locked, but I don't know because I didn't lock it. This needs to be discussed privately over PM.

May 5, 2015 21:51:17 GMT -5 True Patriot said:

May 5, 2015 11:14:33 GMT -5 Tim05 said:

As the thread had not had a reply outside of yourself and Ryan in the House in a month and a half, it is a safe assumption that that bolded text above is incorrect. No one else was interested in the discussion besides yourself and 1 other member. I would recommend moving your discussion to a private message, as it was only a conversation between two people.

That may or may not be the case, but there may be people, even those who are averse to the truth, who are interested in the subject matter or who may become interested in the subject matter.

What is wrong with a thread being an exchange between two members?
At some point others might be compelled to join in.

There may be those who are hesitant about expressing their opinions because they've observed how those with opinions that differ from the presumed consensus are ostracized.

There may be members who enjoy learning historical facts even if they are less inclined to participate in the exchange.

If this forum is truly interested in diversity, in being tolerant of all points a view and wants to give all of its members an opportunity to express themselves, to share their opinions and what they know, then asking members that you don't necessarily agree with to accept being pushed to the margins and to be excluded from participating in public exchanges, undermines that claim of inclusiveness.

What harm could possibly come from a simpleton sharing their opinions supported by historical facts and data?
If nothing else, it helps those that are not simpletons, presumably like yourself, to recognize those who are.

It seems to me that the best way to expose a fool is to allow the fool to demonstrate how foolish they are for all to see instead of trying to silence them.

I'm nearly certain that if you were the one who had done the research and wanted to share the facts with the group that you might wonder about the intentions of a staff that suggests that you instead only communicate via PM.

Making an assertions like, "At one point, the census shows, the number of enslaved Africans actually usurped the number of free whites" is as easy to post as it is disturbing to read...But is the statement as fact actually true?

Researching into what the actual census showed and finding the statement utterly false takes more time.
Sending a private message to the person who posted the erroneous assertion rather than posting the evidence publicly allows the false statement to stand and assumed to be accurate.
I've always felt that most people prefer to base their opinions on facts, but I'm beginning to think otherwise.

The only way to chip away at generally accepted falsehoods is to present the facts and the data and hope that people will employ their own reasoning to determine if the presumed consensus of opinion is congruent or not with the reality.

Why would any genuinely honest person object to that?

Your thread wasn't DELETED. It was LOCKED. That's it. Every single person in this forum can still read every single one of your posts. Why are you complaining? It's all still there.