5 Hours Long

[fides' Jack]

But worth listening to...

https://www.brighteon.com/b3455142-d29e-493a-a4b2-ce9accb8e25c

https://www.brighteon.com/47dc205e-1fe5-4925-a0e9-a199d2fd2222

https://www.brighteon.com/0cee12a2-2b8f-4d49-8531-25e90799a13c

https://www.brighteon.com/416eb263-c67f-407d-a5f7-b90074d77201

https://www.brighteon.com/a8e4c7ad-b0ab-483c-8734-5b7938b10620

https://www.brighteon.com/620e2143-8f32-463b-a501-8fd9023c268f

[chrysostom]

Summarize before I click on the link!

[fides' Jack]

LifeSiteNews interviews with several different doctors, lawyers, etc... who are at the top of their respective fields, on face masks, vaccines in general, covid-19 vaccines, history, politics...

[ReasonableFaith]

14 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Summarize before I click on the link!

Happy to provide a summary for you. But I would recommend the first link. It’s about 3 min and gives a good preview concerning the ‘Great Re-set,’ New World Order, Deep State, and Deep Church. As a bonus you will be pitched soaps, lotions, beard balms, and other products by John-Henry Westen, a journalist at the top of his field. 
 

The basic summary is:

1) It’s a plan-demic. 

2) Don’t wear a mask. It’s blasphemy. If God wanted you to wear a mask He would have made you with a mask.

3) Don’t get the vaccine. It’s gravely immoral. Also it is designed to alter DNA and turn people into alien lizard humanoids who can be tracked and controlled. 
 

4) The state is just busy flexing its authority and cares nothing about public health. 
 

With just a cursory glance and a scratch at the surface...

‘Experts at the top of their field’:

-leading anti-Vaxxer osteopath how had her to-be speaking tour down-under cancelled by venues after they discovered her so called  ‘science’ long before COVID.

-chiropractor and recipient of Federal Trade Commission sanctions who once claimed to be a physician and suggested swilling Gin and Tonics will prevent/cure COVID (w the lime, please). 

-phD in snacking and COVID-1984 theorist. 

-geo-engineering/chemtrails ‘whistle blower’ with a penchant for speaking at far right-wing, anti-government, armed militia group gatherings.

-self appointed ethicist who says you can’t take the vaccine even though the Church says you can (x2).

-a co-conspirator of David Daleiden

-a roving auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan to lend credibility.

There has been much special secret knowledge revealed to these ‘experts.’

The poster and journalist both make an argument from authority.  This is the panel they chose.  Some make the rounds at LifeSite News, Newsmaxx, OAN, etc.  Maybe somebody finds them credible, can use them to advance their own conspiracy theories, or at least can make a buck off of them. 

[fides' Jack]

At least make one argument that is not an Ad Hominem attack!  Just one argument about a specific issue.  That's all I'm asking.

[ReasonableFaith]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

At least make one argument that is not an Ad Hominem attack!  Just one

Come now. These ‘experts’ make arguments riddled with ad hominem and ad institutum attacks. You claim such arguments are worth consideration. 
 

You and Westen offered these as ‘experts’ and vouched for their credibility. 
 

literally the first guy...the very first guy...who carefully dances around the fact he is a chiropractor, says if ‘God wanted us to have masks he would have build us with one.’  This is some deep expertise. I’m truly interested to which other things he applies this reasoning. My favorite part is when he says a liar is a liar always and paints himself so well. 
 

The next ‘expert,’ after mischaracterizing good sanitary habits,  claims the government is Nazi and feels any day she will have to wear a star on her arm.

The third ‘expert’ agrees with ‘everything’ the prior two have said. So to recap: God would have made us with masks if He wanted and she compares this to the Holocaust.
 

To be clear: Pounding 24 gin and tonics a day will not keep you from getting or cure you from COVID even with extra lime, but it will get you drunk. You may enjoy where I live. Recently, a late middle-aged couple accosted me for wearing a mask while buying gin. 

[chrysostom]

Ah. Yes. This is not my sort of thing.

I have become a crank of sorts this year, but I'm on a different tack.

My crankiness is focused on the ubiquity of non-pharmaceutical interventions and their questionable results. And the relative silence about seasonality regarding viruses (including coronaviruses) on the outlets which are supposed to give us all the important info. And how the original reason for Mass lockdown - the long incubation period / asymp / presymp spread - is no longer nearly as strong as it was previously presented; buried in the paragraphs of some recent CDC reportage is an estimate of asymp AND presymp spread accounting for something like one percent of total infections. Together with evidence that the worst hit COVID cases spread from highly symptomatic people and mild infections spread from mildly hit people - the calculus of preventing healthy people from going about their daily business seems much less justified to me.

With all due regard for the fact that there is a lot of information I don't know about and that I have blind spots. This is just where I am at the moment.

Edited February 24, 2021 by chrysostom

[fides' Jack]

4 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Come now. These ‘experts’ make arguments riddled with ad hominem and ad institutum attacks. You claim such arguments are worth consideration. 
 

You and Westen offered these as ‘experts’ and vouched for their credibility. 
 

literally the first guy...the very first guy...who carefully dances around the fact he is a chiropractor, says if ‘God wanted us to have masks he would have build us with one.’  This is some deep expertise. I’m truly interested to which other things he applies this reasoning. My favorite part is when he says a liar is a liar always and paints himself so well. 
 

The next ‘expert,’ after mischaracterizing good sanitary habits,  claims the government is Nazi and feels any day she will have to wear a star on her arm.

The third ‘expert’ agrees with ‘everything’ the prior two have said. So to recap: God would have made us with masks if He wanted and she compares this to the Holocaust.
 

To be clear: Pounding 24 gin and tonics a day will not keep you from getting or cure you from COVID even with extra lime, but it will get you drunk. You may enjoy where I live. Recently, a late middle-aged couple accosted me for wearing a mask while buying gin. 

So, more of the same, yes?

I guess my request wasn't clear, so I'll have to clarify.  Each of these persons made remarks that were clearly their own opinions, and each of them made scientific or legal remarks based on their experience and knowledge coming from their positions.  It is one of these latter remarks that I'd like you to bring up some kind of actual evidence against.  Just one of them.

Up till now you haven't done that.  You've made a number of ad hominem attacks and some straw men arguments (not just in this thread).  You've taken general statements and made fun of them without trying in the slightest to expose why they are wrong.  You've taken ideas and thoughts and minimalized them inaccurately until you could simply scoff them off as absurdities.

But not one scientific or logical argument exposing a true falsehood.

In fact, there is much that is similar between what's going on now and what happened back in Nazi Germany.  If that's true, it should not be scoffed at.  

Very recently, I was accosted for going to confession without a mask on.  Thankfully it happened afterward, and not before, as then I would not have been able to receive the sacrament, and the people who pushed me away would probably have committed grave matter.

In a very recent apparition (qualifying as personal revelation), from Our Lady Queen of Peace (February 23, 2021):

Quote

Dear children, be obedient to My Call. I have come from Heaven to call you to conversion. Listen to Me. The Lord expects much of you. Do not retreat. Do not leave what you have to do until tomorrow. Humanity is walking in spiritual blindness because men have turned away from the Creator. Half-truth will increasingly spread and many of My poor children will be contaminated. Love and defend the truth. Open your hearts to the Lord’s Light and you will never be swept away by the mire of false doctrines. Pray much. You will yet see horrors everywhere. Seek strength in the Gospel and the Eucharist. I love you and will always be with you! This is the message that I give you today in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. Thank you for having allowed Me to gather you here once more. I bless you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Be at peace. 

 

2 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

who says you can’t take the vaccine even though the Church says you can (x2).

This is incorrect.  In fact, the Church's true position is pretty clear, though you'll need to do some of your own digging and have proper moral education in order to see it.  There are some bishops who now stand at odds with authentic Church teaching.  May God have mercy on their souls...

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

literally the first guy...the very first guy...who carefully dances around the fact he is a chiropractor, says if ‘God wanted us to have masks he would have build us with one.

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

I hope for consistency sake that this person does not take plane rides use a telephone or any farm implement with rubber tires.

It would be a lot easier being conservative if the loudmouth conservatives did not have that glazed over crazy eyed appearance.

[Anastasia]

Some time ago I looked into mRNA vaccines and very much did not like what I read. The info I read was from the research papers and not from “cranks”. Like this COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

But this is just a side-info.

I am slightly surprised though that there is no discussion in the Roman Catholic circles about the “abortion-tainted vaccines”. I know that the Vatican gave a green light to use them but I expected more concern and distress over ushering the Catholics to receive abortion-tainted vaccines (literally all vaccines available in Europe and US now are abortion-tainted i.e. either produced or/and tested with the abortion-derived stem cells). Keeping that fact in a mind the news headlines like “Muslims are enquiring whether vaccines are halal” or “vegans are concerned if any animals were used for vaccines” read a bit infernal.

Instead of developing this topic I will leave the link to the paper which speaks on the “metaphysical aspect” of the vaccination: 
Communion of abandonment

[Lilllabettt]

28 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Some time ago I looked into mRNA vaccines and very much did not like what I read. The info I read was from the research papers and not from “cranks”. Like this COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

But this is just a side-info.

I am slightly surprised though that there is no discussion in the Roman Catholic circles about the “abortion-tainted vaccines”. I know that the Vatican gave a green light to use them but I expected more concern and distress over ushering the Catholics to receive abortion-tainted vaccines (literally all vaccines available in Europe and US now are abortion-tainted i.e. either produced or/and tested with the abortion-derived stem cells). Keeping that fact in a mind the news headlines like “Muslims are enquiring whether vaccines are halal” or “vegans are concerned if any animals were used for vaccines” read a bit infernal.

Instead of developing this topic I will leave the link to the paper which speaks on the “metaphysical aspect” of the vaccination: 
Communion of abandonment

The vaccines being used in the US are not derived from fetal cells. Although I think perhaps the latest one approved, Johnson and Johnson, is? But it is only 60% effective.  Although there may be anxiety over mrna technology certainly if a non abortion linked alternative is available we should prefer it?  And it seems to be the most effective as well. Reminiscent of the stem cell debate. Much ado was made about the necessity of using fetal stem cells and how we absolutely needed to use them to cure disease... in the end, or at least currently, adult stem cells turned out to be much more effective for research purposes.  

[hakutaku]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Each of these persons made remarks that were clearly their own opinions, and each of them made scientific or legal remarks based on their experience and knowledge coming from their positions. 

If they're allowed to make appeals to their own authority, we are allowed to call into question that authority.

[ReasonableFaith]

In relation to papers presented by non-crank experts it is worth noting John Bartholomew Classen is not only the go to resource for non-mRNA vaccination but for all things non-vaccination in general. 

After one wades through the claimed potential for mis-folded, scary sounding proteins and dubious methodology you arrive at the final paragraph:

“Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of COVID-19 is actually the result of an bioweapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government [10,11]. Such a theory is not far fetched given that the 2001 anthrax attack in the US originated at Fort Detrick, a US army bioweapon facility. Because the FBI’s anthrax investigation was closed against the advice of the lead FBI agent in the case, there are likely conspirators still working in the US government. In such a scenario the primary focus of stopping a bioweapons attack must be to apprehend the conspirators or the attacks will never cease. Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous. The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection.”

I find the publisher of the paper and this paragraph of the paper particularly interesting; others may not. It is of note he cites himself [10,11] as ‘many.’  
 

I have included the bit of the paragraph concerning anthrax as context.  Some of which is in dispute by a congressional investigation and report concerning the findings of the FBI investigation.

 

 

[Anastasia]

17 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

After one wades through the claimed potential for mis-folded, scary sounding proteins and dubious methodology you arrive at the final paragraph:

What can I say? I research for the purpose of having the information from different sources because I wish to have a reasonably objective picture and make an informed choice. (Such information can be found in many places, sometimes even on "crank" websites, one just has to distill it from the "crank" package and then verify it on more objective recourses. It is for a good reason why US and U.S.S.R. read each other's propaganda.) 

On the other hand, you seem to scan the sci- materials for the sole purpose of finding something that will allow you to dismiss/discredit the referenced sci-information if it is contrary to "a party line" - no matter if somewhat similar info is given but others, quite respectable, scientists. Who is "indoctrinated" or "narrow-minded" then?
 

19 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

The vaccines being used in the US are not derived from fetal cells. Although I think perhaps the latest one approved, Johnson and Johnson, is? But it is only 60% effective.

I was careful to say "abortion-tainted". As far as I know, US makes use of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. There were not produced with the abortion-derived foetal cells but they tested the vaccines on them so they are unethical. Some time ago I thought such vaccines are more ethical (and this is why I considered mRNA as an option) than those which used cells for their production and thus acceptable but no longer think so, why - is outlined in the paper 'Communion of abandonment' (see the link above).

Johnson and Johnson used foetal cells on all stages of making their vaccines. You can check the details on the chart the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Anastasia

[ReasonableFaith]

16 hours ago, Anastasia said:

What can I say? I research for the purpose of having the information from different sources because I wish to have a reasonably objective picture and make an informed choice. (Such information can be found in many places, sometimes even on "crank" websites, one just has to distill it from the "crank" package and then verify it on more objective recourses.

It is laudable to compare information from multiple sources in a attempt to form a ‘reasonably objective picture and informed choice.’  I attempted to contain my comments to the paper itself and it’s presentation. I had and have no intention of impugning you personally. 
 

This particular paper was presented as not being from ‘cranks.’  The final paragraph, as well as the paranoia concerning the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the notion a spike protein has been engineered as a species-wide receptor for a secondary virus to be released by government actors, may indicate to some the author has ‘crank’ tendencies. 
 

16 hours ago, Anastasia said:

On the other hand, you seem to scan the sci- materials for the sole purpose of finding something that will allow you to dismiss/discredit the referenced sci-information if it is contrary to "a party line" - no matter if somewhat similar info is given but others, quite respectable, scientists.

The above largely concerned its seeming presentation as reliable information from a non-crank source due to it being a ‘research paper.’  One can examine the source/publisher, the author, and the publication itself to establish credibility/reliability. 
 

The author, Classen, chooses to publish in a SciVision platformed publication. The journal is notably absent from the most reputable and discerning indexing services. The hosting website and article itself contain grammatical and spelling errors.  The publisher has allowed the author to spread his governmental deep-state conspiratorial views across their array of journals for the price of $1,200 per article.  All of this contributes to the evaluation of the journal itself. 

Classen has previously published in more widely circuited, cited, and reputable publications. On more than one occasion his methods, statistical analysis, and conclusions have drawn criticism and seemingly un-answered rebuttals. The author has an affinity for a Finnish study examining vaccination and type 1 diabetes. He claims a casual link unable to be established by the original researchers.  This causal link has been used to support himself in succeeding publications. His claim has drawn rebuttal papers, letters to editors decrying his methodology, and calls for his mined data to be examined by independent statisticians.  It may be the case by publishing here he receives less criticism from the scientific community at large but can still point to ‘published research papers’ to promote himself and his views.

The article itself also raises many questions.  The introduction contains handwringing over an un-related vaccine, its manufacture, and some outcomes. The very first citation claims support from himself in a paper claiming support from his first paper citing his findings in the Finnish study and published by The British Medical Journal.  By way of the second citation he conflates the cited study with his proposals/hypothesis and findings. 

The methodology is discussed in three sentences.  The methods are two: he ‘evaluated’ and ‘analyzed.’  No mention is made of how this evaluation and analysis was conducted or what, if any, control was used.

The word ‘potential or potentially’ is used at least a dozen times in approximately two pages of text.  There is no mention of observation of outcomes to support the hypothesis.  This leaves one wondering what science was actually done here.  It seems to be speculation and conjecture resulting in a ‘garbage in, garbage out’ situation. 

I would be interested to see where more credible scientists offer support or similar information to the findings and conclusions drawn by Dr Classen in this article.

In closing, there is nothing wrong with reading this type of information. It is true one can sometimes find interesting and enlightening information amongst ‘crank sources.’  It doesn’t seem to me the article from Dr Classen contains much, if any, of this type of information.  I realize others may draw different conclusions.  

[Anastasia]

4 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

This particular paper was presented as not being from ‘cranks.’  The final paragraph, as well as the paranoia concerning the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the notion a spike protein has been engineered as a species-wide receptor for a secondary virus to be released by government actors, may indicate to some the author has ‘crank’ tendencies. 

To be precise "paranoia" (a definition) is "an unrealistic distrust of others or a feeling of being persecuted". You may recall some time ago in another thread I gave the link to the paper HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World  . I think such info is more than enough for judging "a distrust of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" to be realistic i.e. quite far from paranoia. Unfortunately, the facts are that "Gates initiative" to vaccinate African women had a hidden part, their sterilization and those facts are given in the paper.

Naturally, after the paper was released some made an argument that yes, there is sterilization agent there but there was "some sincere mistake of we do not know who". Then it is a matter of faith, to allow the possibility that Gates and likeminded have never wanted to sterilize women in poor countries - despite actually proclaiming the need to drastically reduce the population in the third world.

I understand why many choose not to see those facts or to explain them away. They are too disturbing and ugly. As for me, I choose to face them and to acknowledge that the agenda to give to the unsuspected women a vaccine which would render them infertile (and cause spontaneous abortions in already pregnant) is evil. To give something evil in the package of good is even more evil and brings to a mind certain practices of the past in concentration camps.

Observing Bill Gates on mass-media I got a sense that he is probably sincerely deluded. He clearly thinks about himself as "a saviour of humanity"; I am quite sure he thought he benefited African women via giving them a vaccine with a sterilizing agent. A person who feels he is a god is very dangerous, especially if he is not a simple "a selfish greedy god" but "a selfless god". A selfish god at least has some stop button in him; he stops when his endeavors begin hurting him. "A saviour of humanity" does not have a stop button because he is convinced that all he does is good, since he does it for "the greater good". He is totally blind. It makes a sense then to keep away from a blind man with a saviour complex - but by no means I am trying to convince anyone, I am just outlining my position.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Anastasia

[ReasonableFaith]

On 2/24/2021 at 3:58 PM, fides' Jack said:

I guess my request wasn't clear, so I'll have to clarify.  Each of these persons made remarks that were clearly their own opinions, and each of them made scientific or legal remarks based on their experience and knowledge coming from their positions.  It is one of these latter remarks that I'd like you to bring up some kind of actual evidence against.  Just one of them.

These people were declared as  ‘experts at the top of their field’ making arguments worthy of consideration. It now appears some are people tangentially connected to their purported field of expertise opining on matters of interest to some while occasionally interjecting scientific, legal, or logical arguments. 
 

They use personal opinions, ad hominem attacks, ad institutium attacks, and straw-man arguments without drawing the ire of the original poster. 
 

The very first ‘expert’ in the field of face masks is a chiropractor. In the first five minutes he makes the claim no evidence exists indicating masking ‘works’ in relation to COVID. He claims the evidence is in fact quite the contrary. Not contrary in the sense masking ‘doesn’t work’ but contrary in the sense masking is harmful. He goes on to cite a German study with the initiative of discovering ‘feely’ responses from its subjects (ie fatigue, headaches, emotional moods, lack of concentration, etc.). He ignores studies with quantifiable data suggesting face masks help to alleviate/slow the transmission of the virus and are ideally used in conjunction with distancing and good sanitary habits.  He doesn’t call the studies into question, doesn’t dispute the methodology, doesn’t dispute the statistical analysis, doesn’t dispute the findings, he claims they wholesale do not exist. 
 

He also indicates the large number of death certificates he has examined (surely tens of thousands) point to the danger of masking because some list bacterial respiratory infections as co-morbidities.  All this is done without any reference to causal evidence.  A reasonable observer would expect to see such infections. Additionally he cites the statement that a large number of deaths during the Spanish Flu epidemic were from bacterial respiratory infection is further proof of the dangers of masking. Once again one would expect to see such infections when immune and respiratory systems had been ravaged by the Spanish Flu. 
 

He finally cites his anecdotal evidence of seeing many ‘kids,’ in his primary care practice, who have bacterial respiratory infections as even more evidence against masking. Children get bacterial repository infections, they even get pneumonia. Where is the scientific analysis for a ‘scientific claim?’ It is of note he is treating such a number of youthful patients as a ‘primary care provider.’  He is a chiropractor. This is not an oddity. It is the fundamental objective of his practice. Just one of his initiatives as a’ primary care provider’ has been to encourage ‘“parents come to us at least 2 years before conceiving a child to first correct unidentified health issues with them in order to prevent those genes from being passed down.” This is a very interesting proposition coming from a DC.  

The FTC and BBB have responded to more than one claim coming from his practice.  The ACA has called for its members repudiate and refrain from claims appealing to areas outside of their clinical expertise.  

In other forums he has declared a host of unsubstantiated adverse consequences to wearing masks. This is all from a expert who has purported to be a ‘physician,’ declared tonic water as a viable preventive, and propositioned God would have made you with a mask if He intended you to wear one. These are not words I have put in his mouth...these are words coming out of his mouth. 

Given the totality of evidence, I am perfectly comfortable dismissing Nepute as an expert at the top of any field mentioned in the origins of this thread or claimed by the host. I am also perfectly comfortable if someone thinks they may benefit from and decides to purchase his ‘Patriot Pack’ of vitamins or visit him for what may be a wonderful adjustment.  

Some readers may interpret a little levity as dear Aunt Sally. This is fine by me. No, the dear DC did not claim you should add gin to the Schweppes tonic water, nor lime. I also doubt alien lizard humanoids were actually invoked, but I can’t say I spent 5 hours with these ‘experts.’  
 

As an aside, I suggest it would do one quite well to tread very lightly on the ground of the Holocaust and being compelled to wear stars on their arm. 
 

I am not here to convince the original posters of anything. My object was to comment on the very nature of the presentation of the material which was posted in a public forum.  My inclination is to believe direct confrontation of or rebuttal to persons holding to many such positions actually works to further entrench them in their positions. 

3 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

You may recall some time ago in another thread I gave the link to the paper HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World  . I think such info is more than enough for judging "a distrust of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" to be realistic i.e. quite far from paranoia.

Thank you for the link to the paper. I don’t think I’m am familiar with the thread and will be happy to give it a read.  
 

I know what I understand as Bill Gates’ position on world population has a potential to sow much distrust and skepticism. And I agree he can and come off as exhibiting a savior complex. I appreciate the opportunity to examine additional information on the subject. 

[fides' Jack]

Ad hominem after ad hominem.  Straw men and red herrings.  Not a single real argument, yet.

I agree not all of them are "at the top of their field" which is a phrase you seem particular irked by.  I never suggested they were.  I gave a summary.  That's all.  

And it's very true, the evidence is now overwhelming, masking hurts both the person wearing the mask and those around them.  Statistically, it has been shown globally, by a leftist university, that mandated masking actually increased covid-19 cases.  There's no reason to mask, unless you want to submit to the immoral left.

[Anastasia]

I do not know about "immoral left" but I found that a prevailing opinion Russian scientists (no links because it is in Russian i.e. useless for people who read this forum)  that a mask is needed by one who is ill and sneezes. Others may use masks in the places where they are literally like herring in a jar, when someone may spit into another's face - yet the mask does not protect the eyes anyway. All agreed that to wear a mask in the streets is not just an idiocy but bad for health.

Interestingly, there was an important research in Denmark about the effectiveness of masks and apparently the difference between a group with masks and no masks was very small. Yet, as soon as the results were published the counterargument appeared, that no one checked whether the participants wore masks non-stop (or did not wear) etc... so again, it is matter of faith. 

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm going to post this today now that I'm in a more charitable mood, but it's just a general note regarding people that lurk anonymously and report and ask us to censor people that aren't violating any laws or phorum rules. It's an alarming trend, and in the many years I've been here I've never seen people ask for censorship in this manner until recently.

As I've said before, we're not facebook or twitter.  I don't recall us ever picking and choosing how people were allowed to discuss current events in that way, and I for one am not going to follow that trend now. I would rather see people participating and debating instead of just asking us to shut people up. 

Have a good Sunday.