Is it possible that the reason I haven't received an answer to my question is simply due to your superficial reading of my post? If that's the case, let me start by restating the single most important point—the actual core of this entire discussion—to serve as an introduction to a more detailed explanation:
What exactly constitutes grounds for deletion? mog posta u To the designated topic.?lonebadger6 said:First off, if you actually want an answer or a real conversation about some issue, try being civilized next time, because you won't be getting any responses to these kinds of open-ended "complaints." If you can't start a discussion normally without resorting to personal attacks, then don't expect a normal response...
If your reply had been actionable, you would have received a strike. Only one response was left because the topic itself is pointless, and besides, the initial replies already made it clear which way this was going—specifically the one mentioned in the closing explanation.
In short, we really don't need a thread dedicated to theorizing about "unfathomable" reasons why American media writes about Bruce Springsteen or Madonna, yet stays silent on Estonian singers... That's why only that single response remained on the topic.
It's pretty simple. American media covers Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, and Whitney Houston because there are plenty of people in America who listen to them. Meanwhile, 99% of Americans couldn't name a single Estonian singer, writer, or public figure even if their lives depended on it. There’s no conspiracy, no shadow organizations, and no hellish plot to bring back the USSR.
The media writes about celebrities. In America, the media writes about people who are famous in America. It's really that straightforward.
If you're struggling with the fact that Madonna performs in major US arenas and everyone knows her name and clicks on her articles, maybe you could start a different thread in the off-topic section about the musical (non)taste of Americans...
I honestly don't follow. What exactly am I calling "uncivilized" in my description? And more importantly, why on earth are you putting the word "complaint" in quotation marks?
I consider my initial contribution to have been quite "civilized"—though, frankly, I’m starting to wonder what the standard for civilization even looks like given the current level of discourse here. That said, both my post and the topic itself clearly belong under...
An appeal? Is that what we’re calling this now? Even if it’s framed as a question.
Furthermore, regardless of how my enrollment actually plays out, I suppose that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
It isn't an ad hominem attack.Are you being serious right now, or just trolling? Based on my own definition, it’s all happening on the same day. It seems you either fail to grasp the actual definition of an *ad hominem* fallacy, or you’ve convinced yourself that any critique directed at a person constitutes one. Is every single personal observation really a logical fallacy in your eyes?
An ad hominem attack in this thread would be if I were to resort to something like, for example...
For instance...The moderator who deleted my comment probably spends his free time either living off government subsidies or hunting stray dogs. Or, perhaps he’s busy dedicating himself to humanitarian efforts—donating chunks of his paycheck to help orphans and such. The only difference is that in the latter case, people wouldn't label it an "ad hominem" attack; after all, pointing out someone's questionable character during a debate is practically standard procedure.
That’s the essence of an ad hominem attack: focusing on a person's character rather than the actual argument, making personal jabs that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I had zero intention of bringing anyone's personality into this, nor was that my objective. To be perfectly blunt: I couldn't care less about who you are or what you do. In fact, figuring that out is likely the very last thing I'd ever want to know.
If your response were actually actionable under the rules, you’d be facing a penalty right about now.
That is actually the only coherent sentence in your entire response. I’ll take that as my cue to pivot to the only part of this conversation that actually matters: by making that point, you’re essentially validating my own position. You are confirming what I already stated—that my deleted post lacked both substance and structure, and wouldn't even qualify as "unwanted" content under a strict reading of the forum's bylaws.
I’ve decided to leave just one response here, mostly because the topic itself feels entirely pointless. Besides, the initial replies have already made it abundantly clear which way the wind is blowing—specifically regarding the individual mentioned in the justification for the shutdown.
This is also just my way of processing things—something I’ll share only once I’ve truly pushed my brain to its limit and finally grasped the core of what I'm actually asking. Once the logic clicks, I'll provide a more concrete explanation.
In short[...]
All this is just shooting in the dark—bringing up Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, or the old USSR. It’s pretty clear you didn't actually understand my question.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the topic itself, man. (And by the way, do you consider my language "uncivilized"? Are you trying to imply that this is how I usually talk? If so, you're the one who introduced an ad hominem attack into this debate, because there hasn't been a single swear word used until this very comment)!
I am talking about my constitutional right to an opinion, specifically regarding the Thirty-first Amendment of the US Constitution! I don't care what you think, or what the assumed or actual truth on this forum might be
regarding anything whatsoever! In this thread, just as in any other, I am completely indifferent to whatever your moderation efforts decide to label as the "infallible truth." I simply do not care.
Look, I've been navigating the internet since back in '93 when a friend showed me what happens when you type a command into some old DOS prompt, and I was permanently hooked on politics after the chaos of '95. Even then, I can tell you that I have never experienced anything like what happened to me in this thread. NEVER. I've been banned from services before, and I've had answers obscured by nonsense, but in all those cases, an objective observer could still analyze the situation and figure out the "why" and "how." ALWAYS!
This is the first time I've participated in a debate within a democratic society—the first being back in 1990 during my senior year of high school in one of those newly introduced Civics classes that replaced our old social studies curriculum, where the teacher acted as our moderator—and I have been hit
like a ton of bricks!
That is what I am talking about! Just that! Why on earth are you bringing up the USSR and Madonna?!
I am repeating the question one more time, in the hope that you will either read this to the end and provide an answer, or that another admin will step in to address it.
Was my post (and my other posts) deleted while leaving a single reply behind, thereby creating an artificial or false impression of how the discussion actually progressed, because:
a) it is the result of a single administrator acting on a whim?
or
b) it is a (not-so) hidden political agenda of the owner of this site?
