I think you're confused about the difference between a straw man and a hypothetical situation intended to illustrate a point. The point of my hypothetical was that the same principle would apply if the situation were reversed. That principle is that trying to improve someone's Web site for them is not a prerequisite for criticism of that Web site.
"That 'Pro Brinker Only idea' already been tried on SI and it was made quite clear that those who didn't like it were not allowed to post. Posts that complained were deleted and people who made them banned from particapation. You were a regular on that forum and I don't recall you objecting."
Are you saying that in order to criticize a Web site, a person must first criticize all similar Web sites? If so, I disagree. However, I support your right to post your opinion of Justa's board, and I insist that I have the same right to criticize your boards as you have to criticize his.
BTW, the only post that has been deleted on this thread so far was done by iHub management, not by me, nor was it done at my request. (For those who are wondering, it was an advertisement for a Russian Web site unrelated to the topic of this thread.)
"I think enough complained that eventually Justa took it to Brinker's web site where he was allowed to delete any and all who posted anything critical of Brinker. Again, I don't recall you complaining."
I didn't know that Justa was deleting posts on Brinker's boards. However I have in fact complained about the way the Brinkers ran their discussion boards, beginning with Rande's expulsion, and as I have said several times, it's a good thing they discontinued them, because they were no good at it.
"The fact is I have not acted like you and complained about whatever you want to post in your own Blog."
And yet you're here right now, complaining about something I posted on my own thread. What's the difference?
You have the right to complain about anything you like. If you choose not to exercise that right, it does not alter the fact that you have that right, and it does not alter the fact that I have that right.
"Your argument is as silly as telling the NY Times that they should not post so many Liberal articles. It is THEIR CHOICE to post what they want."
That's funny, because I know people who complain constantly about the NYT's slant, and it never occurred to me tell them that there was something wrong with their posting their opinion of it.
And, for the record, I am NOT telling Honey what to post. I am only calling a spade a spade.
So far, you haven't claimed that I have said anything untrue about Honey's board. Do you object to the truth being posted? If you think anything I have said about it is untrue, tell me what it is.
"OTOH, you are on the record of supporting a Forum moderated by Justa on SI then on Brinker's own web site that kicked people off simply for posting things the Brinker's didn't like such as complimentary words to David Korn."
I'm not sure what you mean by supporting, but it's true that I did post on those boards for a while. Eventually, I got bored with Justa's board and went elsewhere, which has been my pretty consistent reaction to all one-sided boards. The Brinker boards always seemed to have a variety of opinions on them in spite of whatever censorship was taking place, so I continued to read and/or post there until they were closed.
The fact is that I ALSO support Honey's right to have a one-sided thread or blog, just as I have a right to express my opinion of it.
I must say, it really takes hubris for you to tell me that I shouldn't express my opinion of links that you post on my thread. Who the heck do you think you are?
Even if you hadn't posted those links here, I have the right to express my opinion. You will never succeed in your attempts to silence me.
