2 deleted 39 characters in body; deleted 14 characters in body
source | link
  1. DJClayworth, I agree with your opinion. Everyone has different level of judgement. Something that is clear to you may not be clear to some others, especially when facing some webpage that have been disguised. Jessica had the right to ask her question and express her doubt, because her post did not advertize the products but was to cast her doubt on them. Closing and deleting her post is not fair, not even to say closing her account.
  2. I feel sorry about this site. It is supposed to be for scepticism, but ironically, it does not allowforbids some to express their valid doubts, while fostersallow others to say whatever they want to claim to be the truthtrue. Talking on an account and her post that have been forced to disappear, one can just safely say anything he wants regardless if it is true.

    If the original question had been asked even remotely in good faith, it wouldn't have URLs,

    it wouldn't have quoted the full text of the ad, and the question itself might have shown a modicum of skepticism.

    Yes!

    • Question about "can we trust ..." will risk being understood as not scepticism, but some conspiracy, hiding the intention of promoting it!
    • Links and quotation to websites under doubt will risk being judged as not being in good faith. Partial quotation will be said to be same as an entire one.

    it wouldn't be by a new, unknown, anonymous user,

    • Hey, does this site have attitude towards new users?
    • Her account had a name "Jessica", but can one just say it is anonymous?
    • Of course, virtually everyone is unknown to everyone else here, in the sense that we are just a bunch of i.d.'s. Underneath we don't know what kinds of person the others are.
  1. DJClayworth, I agree with your opinion. Everyone has different level of judgement. Something that is clear to you may not be clear to some others, especially when facing some webpage that have been disguised. Jessica had the right to ask her question and express her doubt, because her post did not advertize the products but was to cast her doubt on them. Closing and deleting her post is not fair, not even to say closing her account.
  2. I feel sorry about this site. It is supposed to be for scepticism, but ironically, it does not allow some to express their valid doubts, while fosters others to say whatever they want to claim to be the truth. Talking on an account and her post that have been forced to disappear, one can just safely say anything he wants regardless if it is true.

    If the original question had been asked even remotely in good faith, it wouldn't have URLs,

    it wouldn't have quoted the full text of the ad, and the question itself might have shown a modicum of skepticism.

    Yes!

    • Question about "can we trust ..." will risk being understood as not scepticism, but some conspiracy, hiding the intention of promoting it!
    • Links and quotation to websites under doubt will risk being judged as not being in good faith. Partial quotation will be said to be same as an entire one.

    it wouldn't be by a new, unknown, anonymous user,

    • Hey, does this site have attitude towards new users?
    • Her account had a name "Jessica", but can one just say it is anonymous?
    • Of course, virtually everyone is unknown to everyone else here, in the sense that we are just a bunch of i.d.'s. Underneath we don't know what kinds of person the others are.
  1. DJClayworth, I agree with your opinion. Everyone has different level of judgement. Something that is clear to you may not be clear to some others, especially when facing some webpage that have been disguised. Jessica had the right to ask her question and express her doubt, because her post did not advertize the products but was to cast her doubt on them. Closing and deleting her post is not fair, not even to say closing her account.
  2. I feel sorry about this site. It is supposed to be for scepticism, but ironically, it forbids some to express their valid doubts, while allow others to say whatever they want to claim to be true. Talking on an account and her post that have been forced to disappear, one can just safely say anything.

    If the original question had been asked even remotely in good faith, it wouldn't have URLs,

    it wouldn't have quoted the full text of the ad, and the question itself might have shown a modicum of skepticism.

    Yes!

    • Question about "can we trust ..." will risk being understood as not scepticism, but some conspiracy, hiding the intention of promoting it!
    • Links and quotation to websites under doubt will risk being judged as not being in good faith. Partial quotation will be said to be same as an entire one.

    it wouldn't be by a new, unknown, anonymous user,

    • Hey, does this site have attitude towards new users?
    • Her account had a name "Jessica", but can one just say it is anonymous?
    • Of course, virtually everyone is unknown to everyone else here, in the sense that we are just a bunch of i.d.'s. Underneath we don't know what kinds of person the others are.
1
source | link

  1. DJClayworth, I agree with your opinion. Everyone has different level of judgement. Something that is clear to you may not be clear to some others, especially when facing some webpage that have been disguised. Jessica had the right to ask her question and express her doubt, because her post did not advertize the products but was to cast her doubt on them. Closing and deleting her post is not fair, not even to say closing her account.
  2. I feel sorry about this site. It is supposed to be for scepticism, but ironically, it does not allow some to express their valid doubts, while fosters others to say whatever they want to claim to be the truth. Talking on an account and her post that have been forced to disappear, one can just safely say anything he wants regardless if it is true.

    If the original question had been asked even remotely in good faith, it wouldn't have URLs,

    it wouldn't have quoted the full text of the ad, and the question itself might have shown a modicum of skepticism.

    Yes!

    • Question about "can we trust ..." will risk being understood as not scepticism, but some conspiracy, hiding the intention of promoting it!
    • Links and quotation to websites under doubt will risk being judged as not being in good faith. Partial quotation will be said to be same as an entire one.

    it wouldn't be by a new, unknown, anonymous user,

    • Hey, does this site have attitude towards new users?
    • Her account had a name "Jessica", but can one just say it is anonymous?
    • Of course, virtually everyone is unknown to everyone else here, in the sense that we are just a bunch of i.d.'s. Underneath we don't know what kinds of person the others are.