The Dr. Mercola article was copied verbatim.

No commentary by the resident member who provided the link and the text, but no context of his own.

I thought there were rules against spamming, Chico?

If you want to keep this as a discussion forum and not a link dump, please take the appropriate steps to remove such behavior. Thank you. Hopefully, it's not me thanking just the wind again.

Pax Administratum

Ummm, Zook.... Where were you and these comments when LoveAndGratitude was unleashing barrages of "cut and paste" posts here for weeks on end?

Of course, L&G was one of your supporters, never raising a challenge against your discernment, unlike Andy. Could that be the deciding difference?

I believe there were no written or unwritten rules of conduct back when L and G was posting in cut and paste mode. There have been some changes since then to the written and unwritten ROC (necessitated by the sockpuppetry that ensued). One difference. L and G is a truthseeker and her posts bear that out. Andy is a gatekeeper and his posts bear that out. Another significant difference.

Given the differences, even the post-sockpuppetry ROC of United People might accommodate L and G as an exception to the rule(s) because the pursuit of truth should always be paramount to the pursuit of discussion. Whereas any exception granted to a gatekeeper (e.g. Shenanigan Andy) ... only serve to bring disrepute to the community here at United People.

Or are you suggesting that we treat Andy's gatekeeping on par with the truthseeking of L and G? I suppose if one cares not to clear the muddy waters, truthseeking and gatekeeping should be accorded equal tolerances. Wot?



Andy has not challenged my discernment ... he has challenged my patience with his juvenile delinquency. Wot sayeth you, Papa Chico?

In any event, this forum will meet its mandate when every identifiable gatekeeper is loaded into the trebuchet aimed at Saturn, and with enough tension to reach Pluto ... and not before.



Pax Ponderosa Pine

One of the primary mandates of United People is no censorship. Having been banned from several forums for the heinous crime of exercising responsible and respectful freedom of speech, I saw the real need for people to unite around the ideas of tolerance for dissent, free speech, and equality. Constantly encouraging me to ban other members is contrary to that philosophy.

Suspension of any member should require a poll of voting members, but that is problematic at the moment, due to the dearth of qualifying voting members and the requirement for high consensus (greater than 75% agreement). You are still welcome to start a public poll to gauge member sentiment on your issue, however.

Just when I was beginning to think you couldn't possibly make a even bigger fool of yourself in public, you go and post this!

Not one mention in two posts about the subject, why is that UncleZook?

Not an issue of censorship, Chico ... but an issue of mischief.

Otherwise, you'd be obliged to bring back all those that you had unilaterally banned in the redesign of a failed forum (e.g. UP1). You rightfully banned those clowns for their mischief. Yet hold true to Andy, through all of his
ongoing shenanigans. Where I learned English, they call that hypocrisy.

Pax Administratum

ps: You mentioned L and G in your earlier post. It's interesting to note that you were upset by her cut-N-pastes in the duty of truths in a more or less unchartered United People (UP1) ... yet you fail to register any upset by Andy's cut-N-paste in the duty of gatekeeping (mixture of truths and falsehoods) in these more or less chartered albeit unwritten climes of United People (UP2).

ps2: I believe where you learned English, they call it hypocrisy also.

Could you summarize the "mischief" you believe Andy has perpetrated?


My only complaint with L&G was the quantity of her cut-and-paste posts, which were so numerous that they generated no discussion, and they made it challenging to find new posts from other members. I would never call for her suspension over her zeal to distribute information.


Andy rarely does cut-and-paste posts, and they always generate discussion.

Your loose accusations of hypocrisy are looking a bit hypocritical.

Don't insult the collective intelligence of this forum, Chico.

From Andy's mischievous two-faced PM (and the denial of giving permission only a week ago) ... to the Stasi-style data collection and attack against TH ... to the numerous references to my living arrangements in a hypothetical basement in my mother's home ... to the constant posting of disinfo ... etc. etc. Haven't even referred to his innuendo more recently against Mags about dick size, etc. ... or Andy's homorerotic fixations masked as iconic banana humor.

The guy is here to keep the gate on this forum ... and, too, because the other major truthseeking forums that have had the displeasure of granting him membership have had to rescind that membership eventually. He may or may not be a paid gatekeeper in Cass Sunstein's army of low-grade morons designed to interfere with qualitative discourses ... more likely though, he is probably a self-appointed gatekeeper freelancing to protect a corrupt system from which he profits directly or indirectly. The freest clue is in the patsies that he promotes ...and the truthseekers - like myself - that he enjoys playing head games with.

As a friend of his, I should think you would apprise him of the fact of his being seriously overmatched in the intellectual, ethical and comical domains of the mind ... and spare him the spankings that I - and others - are obliged to give.

But I will stop there less I be charged - correctly - with being cruel to a defenseless wit.



Well ... I don't care for banning members on speech, either. But mischief is a different kettle of turnips.



The post in question was a cut-N-paste. Please don't try to shift the discussion to frequency of bad behavior. Even in that case, he rarely posts stuff with anything more than a half-sentence here or there ... and the type of discussion his posts generate is low-quality, highly ascerbic, ad hominem-invested discussion. But hey, I'm not convinced that you abhor the trivia and the drama as much as someone responsible for guiding high-quality discussion ought to abhor, e.g. in the ideal of truthseeking. So be it.

Pax United People Politburo

You mean like this?

I would really advise anyone interested in discovering the true nature of our infamous "UncleZook" to read the "Banning for Dollars" topic where these posts were taken from, amazingly only the first 19 pages out of a total of 57 were needed to amass this amount material. After reading them I'm sure you will understand why this member was temporary banned by popular vote for disruptive behavior and trolling!

You have made it quite clear that all the intelligence of this forum lies within your skull. That is the only intelligence I am accused of insulting, and I am trying hard to avoid any deliberate insults whatsoever.


None of that qualifies as real mischief, and all of it is conjecture or based on conjecture, not hard fact, which is ironic given your post to me on this very subject.


That's all conjecture out the whahoo.


We've all been notified multiple times by you of your overwhelming superiority in all domains. But I think Andy said it best:




Yes, it is cut-and-paste, but we all use that useful tool, and that is not a crime. If it were, L&G would be on death row.


"someone responsible for guiding high-quality discussion"? That's how you see my role? And that's how you see the "ideal of truthseeking"?

My dear sir, the idea of "guiding" discussion on a truth-seeking forum reeks of gatekeeping. When searching for truth, there is no need to "guide" inquiring minds. They will naturally question everything and dismiss nothing.