Stone CensorsI dont know that Im wrong in fact Im quite certain that you and AuburnPilot are in the wrong You can censor me and block me all you want  youve got the power  but you cant make me confess to wrongs of which I am innocent Not yet anyway And you cant make me say that youre right when you are as wrong as hell Its about time somebody talked back to youIf you were to discuss your edits you wont sic be in this position right now Since I had already discussed my edits physicqs statement above is a case of a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive an intentional untruth a falsehoodThats funny peculiar because wikicensors with the correct politics somehow never have to discuss their edits They just go and censor people with whom they disagree and then demand that the censees justify the worth of the censored passages or links or footnotes And guess what The censees explanations no matter how wellfounded and eloquent are never sufficient to make the censors change their minds Once an editor realizes that nothing he says will have any positive effect on the censors or should I say commissars he would be a fool to waste his time and energy trying to change that which cannot be changed That the censors continue demanding such arguments is because they have a sadistic glee for wasting other peoples precious time and energyIn case an openminded but perhaps less experienced reader should suspect that I am just engaging in bluster I had already made my argument in my previous entry on this page which AuburnPilot has archived in a handsome tan box at the bottom of UsertalkAuburnPilot under the uncivil category spam for why the footnotes and links I inserted were legitimate but physicq aka physicq210 derided those arguments as a polemic complete with fallacious personal attacks and mocked my criticism of his abuse of authority as whining In one case I pointed out that the external link that AuburnPilot defamed as spam and censored was a classic magazine article related to the  Racial Profiling HoaxSpeaking of which Wikipedias Racial profiling article is hopelessly POV through the censors deleting of links to articles debunking the hoax and inserting of links to fraudulent literature such as thoroughly debunked work by the ACLUIn the case of a footnote that AuburnPilot also defamed as spam and censored he cut the longest most thorough exposé yet published on the  Duke Rape Hoax which was published by the most brilliant reliable magazine on the Web VDAREBTW AuburnPilot asserts that the sources in question are not reliable or verifiable and do not maintain neutrality Aside from the fact that thousands of Wikipedia articles are transparent political propaganda or no more than love or hate letters to certain public figures particularly entertainers or athletes AuburnPilot has misrepresented the Wikipedia rule on neutrality There is no requirement that every source be neutral as opposed to reliable and verifiable only that every Wikipedia article be neutralWPNPOVAll Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view NPOV representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view see the NPOV tutorialAs for verifiablilty the VDARE source has over 100 hyperlinks to supporting documentation from newspapers magazines TV and radio news organizations and legal filings if that isnt verifiable then nothing isNow I ask you If I have already made my best argument for including the aforementioned links and footnotes and physicq aka physicq210 responds by misrepresenting what I said claiming that I have made no attempt at supporting my position and referring to my defense as whining what possible reason could I have for continuing such a charadePlus why should I be on the defensive If I were dealing with fair reasonable people that might make sense But fair reasonable people would not do as AuburnPilot did and first censor my edits and then demand I justify their value on the talk pages And physicq would not have responded to an edit war by throwing in with AuburnPilot immediately blocking me and charging me with disruptive edits That alone is proof of physicqs unfitness as an administrator No AuburnPilot would not have censored my work but would have asked me on the talk page why I thought it belonged No strike that He would have hit the links and read the articles in question If th

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Stone CensorsI dont know that Im wrong in fact Im quite certain that you and AuburnPilot are in the wrong You can censor me and block me all you want  youve got the power  but you cant make me confess to wrongs of which I am innocent Not yet anyway And you cant make me say that youre right when you are as wrong as hell Its about time somebody talked back to youIf you were to discuss your edits you wont sic be in this position right now Since I had already discussed my edits physicqs statement above is a case of a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive an intentional untruth a falsehoodThats funny peculiar because wikicensors with the correct politics somehow never have to discuss their edits They just go and censor people with whom they disagree and then demand that the censees justify the worth of the censored passages or links or footnotes And guess what The censees explanations no matter how wellfounded and eloquent are never sufficient to make the censors change their minds Once an editor realizes that nothing he says will have any positive effect on the censors or should I say commissars he would be a fool to waste his time and energy trying to change that which cannot be changed That the censors continue demanding such arguments is because they have a sadistic glee for wasting other peoples precious time and energyIn case an openminded but perhaps less experienced reader should suspect that I am just engaging in bluster I had already made my argument in my previous entry on this page which AuburnPilot has archived in a handsome tan box at the bottom of UsertalkAuburnPilot under the uncivil category spam for why the footnotes and links I inserted were legitimate but physicq aka physicq210 derided those arguments as a polemic complete with fallacious personal attacks and mocked my criticism of his abuse of authority as whining In one case I pointed out that the external link that AuburnPilot defamed as spam and censored was a classic magazine article related to the  Racial Profiling HoaxSpeaking of which Wikipedias Racial profiling article is hopelessly POV through the censors deleting of links to articles debunking the hoax and inserting of links to fraudulent literature such as thoroughly debunked work by the ACLUIn the case of a footnote that AuburnPilot also defamed as spam and censored he cut the longest most thorough exposé yet published on the  Duke Rape Hoax which was published by the most brilliant reliable magazine on the Web VDAREBTW AuburnPilot asserts that the sources in question are not reliable or verifiable and do not maintain neutrality Aside from the fact that thousands of Wikipedia articles are transparent political propaganda or no more than love or hate letters to certain public figures particularly entertainers or athletes AuburnPilot has misrepresented the Wikipedia rule on neutrality There is no requirement that every source be neutral as opposed to reliable and verifiable only that every Wikipedia article be neutralWPNPOVAll Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view NPOV representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view see the NPOV tutorialAs for verifiablilty the VDARE source has over 100 hyperlinks to supporting documentation from newspapers magazines TV and radio news organizations and legal filings if that isnt verifiable then nothing isNow I ask you If I have already made my best argument for including the aforementioned links and footnotes and physicq aka physicq210 responds by misrepresenting what I said claiming that I have made no attempt at supporting my position and referring to my defense as whining what possible reason could I have for continuing such a charadePlus why should I be on the defensive If I were dealing with fair reasonable people that might make sense But fair reasonable people would not do as AuburnPilot did and first censor my edits and then demand I justify their value on the talk pages And physicq would not have responded to an edit war by throwing in with AuburnPilot immediately blocking me and charging me with disruptive edits That alone is proof of physicqs unfitness as an administrator No AuburnPilot would not have censored my work but would have asked me on the talk page why I thought it belonged No strike that He would have hit the links and read the articles in question If th

