LOCKED THREAD - WHY?

Daniel Williams16 said:Why was the thread regarding the FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
locked over on the alternative subforum?
It seemed perfectly fine for about twelve hours while things were quiet, but the moment actual discussion kicked off, a moderator jumped on a suggestion and shut the whole thing down immediately—quite a curious turn of events!
Does this mean certain users hold more weight than others here, where a single request can trigger an instant executive action from the staff?
I wasn't aware that some members held a status even more commanding than our moderators.
I would very much appreciate a formal explanation for this behavior!!!

Keith Gonzalez said:Since this topic revolves around population decline, vaccination, and the elites driving those agendas (based on the links you provided)—subjects that have been chewed over on the c. Alimentarius PDF hundreds of times already via various threads—I figured it was probably time to close it out.
The user in question has essentially just validated my reasoning.

We aren't glued to this forum 24/7, and I had to actually click through those links to understand your perspective.

Daniel Williams16 said:You might have a point there, though I would certainly expect the alternative subforum to be a bit more relaxed than some of those other, let's say, "serious" sections of the site.
Furthermore, when you mention that this specific subject has been chewed over hundreds of times on the alternative board through various threads, it leads me to wonder: why, after all those iterations, does this particular topic need to be shut down so abruptly? It seems to happen just as people are starting to chime in, even if much of that input isn't particularly constructive.
In my view, perhaps the thread could have been granted a window of 24 or 48 hours to see where the conversation might lead; if, by then, it failed to coalesce into something coherent or acceptable, closing it would be perfectly understandable.
As it stands, one might even argue—if they were to hire a top-tier defense attorney—that the thread was essentially the victim of an unjust abortion.🙂
And finally, just because certain topics are revisited frequently doesn't necessarily mean:
1. That every repetition is of the same caliber.
2. That new facts haven't emerged which could make a previously covered topic relevant once again (much like how historical events can trigger entirely new debates regarding past tragedies).
3. That reopening a similar thread isn't an attempt to view the matter from a slightly different angle, which, in my opinion, warrants at least a chance to see if an interesting discussion might blossom.
If none of these observations or reflections cast any doubt upon the correctness of your decision to lock the thread, then I simply apologize for my own misconception—an error that, after all, can happen to anyone, can it not (perhaps even to the moderators themselves😉)?

Keith Gonzalez said:I suppose you're right that alternative isn't exactly overflowing with rigorous restrictive measures, though I suspect some level of decorum will still be maintained. It seems everyone assumes they don't need to check if a suitable topic already exists.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, the interaction wasn't constructive, which I guess provides even more reason to close this out, since those kinds of (non)discussions were essentially the hallmark of this subforum—something I'm hoping might change. 😉

Regarding points 1, 2, and 3, I suppose the whole point of reviving old threads is that they might contain newer, more current, or more comprehensive content. That way, someone reading from the beginning can track the evolution of thoughts and stances as a thread "ages."
As for the material you mentioned, you should find everything you need regarding C. Alimentarius and vaccination within those specific threads.

If anyone else shows interest, the thread can simply be merged. I won't be reopening this one.