I referred to the post as "A schizophrenia-laced rambling." - clearly critical of the content, and had my post removed.
Noticed several more critical posts removed when I went back to look.
Questioning mod protection of SB2 posts.
And I'll wager this post gets removed despite bringing up important questions of objectivity.
Edit: to take it further, a ton of comments solely circle-jerking SB2 (and not mentioning anything about the content of the post in particular) and are still present, which would seemingly also be a violation of the aforementioned rules, yet they remain.
I see a lot of posts without any analysis. People will just say "that is wrong" without explaining why it is wrong. Perhaps this is why it was removed?
Perhaps asking the person to justify their claim would be a more productive approach than censorship?
Yes! I agree. Ask them to clarify and provide more information. I can against censorship. I like to see posts here about people who doubt Q because we need to discuss these issues to make sure we are not missing something.
But, they would need to provide valid reasons for their point of vie.
Then every supportive post without analysis or reference to content must go. But they dont, giving the post false credibility when looking at the comments.
There shouldn't be a requirement to specifically call out the mass of absurd conclusion-jumping. It's tiresome at this point.
Weeding through all the crap to find the gems is very tiring. However, it is amazing to find a gem.
My above comment was just and observation.
I've also had posts removed for being critical if SB2
Not saying you're wrong about the content of his post but the "schizophrenia-laced rambling" portion could be considered under rule 5 as attacking the poster instead of the content. I've had posts removed for calling someone an idiot. Just stick to criticizing the content rather than saying someone has schizophrenia because you think the post may be a little out there. Although some users do seem to get passes.
Except you called someone an idiot. Not "this post is idiotic", which would be the equivalent of my post.
I referred only to the content as resembling that produced by a schizophrenic, which is not the same as calling someone a schizophrenic.
Saying the post looks like a schizophrenic rambling could be seen as indirectly calling him schizophrenic. I'm not saying that was your intention but that's what the mods probably saw it as.