Polls

Ok Kong...
I will address our recent debate or disagreement on polls here, as to not to hijack someone else's post on an entirely different subject.

First, lets get this straight,
I only disagreed with Graves ONE statement that "Also, most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises."

Thats it. That was the only statement I had a problem with. The only polls I have seen posted here, yours and Swanks were both worthless.

You replied, "Those polls do exist...but as we have learned from several outspoken members here, they don't count!"

So, which polls are they? I have only seen one posted by you and it is as easily dismissed as Swanks "20%" poll.

Graves reffered to "POLLS" in that one line, I am only interested in what other polls have been used to suggest this.

It is statements like the one above that Swank and myself have problems with on occasion. Since, in my mind, there haven't been any polls posted here of a usable nature. Saying that "most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises."
makes me immediately call BS and wonder which "polls" are being referred to.

kooky

BTW,

I hope your medical condition is getting better....

Polls are worthless, especially if you want to find women's preferences. Nine times out of ten, they will choose whatever the guy they are with has. If you've ever seen a discussion about size, it goes like this.. "my guy is 6", and it's perfect...my guy is 8" and thick and it's perfect... my guy's is short, but it fit's perfectly..."

I think polls on women about circ status are totally meaningless.

MDC said:

Polls are worthless, especially if you want to find women's preferences. Nine times out of ten, they will choose whatever the guy they are with has. If you've ever seen a discussion about size, it goes like this.. "my guy is 6", and it's perfect...my guy is 8" and thick and it's perfect... my guy's is short, but it fit's perfectly..."

I think polls on women about circ status are totally meaningless.

Click to expand...

True, there is no way to get an accurate poll withouit bias. People are just going to say what they have experianced instead of doing research and admitting the truth

I don't know exactly what the deal is here, but I agree with what has already been said.

There's never going to be an answer for "what women prefer," and it's fairly useless to try and figure it out. Every woman is going to be different based on her experiences, personal tastes, cultural biases, any number of things.

When you get down to it, probably the only thing you could really say is that if she likes you in the first place, she's not going to care much one way or the other.

disclaimer: this thread was written while on painkillers, so bear with me. :D

kooky, the world is a big place, and most of it, for the most part, is full of uncut cock. It is only here in the USA that our culture is so wrapped up in genital mutilation, and it is our insular and self-aggrandizing culture that perpetuates the idea that that is the best and only way it should be and that we are the experts on everything. Do you think the US is the only country that does polls or discusses sexual preferences? Wouldn't you agree that there are French, English, Canadian or Japanese periodicals that have also ran polls on female sexual preferences and asked those same questions?

I think what you are asking for is a scientific study performed by "reliable, American medical experts"...but those are the very people perpetuating the myth that circumcision is cleaner and medically safer and more aesthetically pleasing when we know for a fact that 1) a foreskin is a self-cleaning organ and 2) more babies die from circumcision than adult men from penile cancer and 3) beauty is in the eye of the beholder and most women cannot actually even tell the difference between uncut and cut when the penis is erect.

I think you want to be reassured that restoration is the right thing to do and circumcision is a bad thing, but it is hard to present the kind of proof you want right now because it goes against the grain here in the USA. The medical industry is only grudgingly giving it up because it makes them a great GREAT GREAT deal of money. Our society knows the truth but wants to cling to the old myths, because for one thing, Change is hard for us as human beings, and for another thing, because there are a great number of circumcised men who are disturbed by the idea that something bad was done to their cocks.

Since it is easy to call BS on any peice of evidence that is brought forth, either by attacking the credibility of the evidence itself or the credibility of the source, it is pretty much pointless to try to prove anything to you. Me personally, I do not put much weight by studies, but read all the first-personal anecdotal evidence that I can. I personally do not trust any medical professional. I do, however, trust my fellow man and what he says. Doctor Scapel has something to gain, or lose. Joe ScHydromaxoe from Idaho doesn't. He's just talking about something he's actually personally doing and experiencing.

When I was in the hospital, I flipped through the channels, and one of their private TV channels was the one for the women in the delivery ward. It was talking about how great circumcision was and showing different circumcision techniques. It showed a baby boy who had just been circumcised and was going on about how clean a circumcised penis was and the poor baby looked like he had been deep fried from the belly button down. It was horrifying to me, but what could I do? There were no pros and cons on that program, no hint that there were any drawbacks at all, or suggestions that men may want to decide for themselves as adults. It was just a horribly one-sided and deceptive commercial for their circumcision service. I wonder if we can somehow force them to run anti-circumcision educational programming on their baby channel as well? Perhaps the anti-circ organizations could concentrate on making hospitals own up to the truth instead of wasting their time with the government trying to pass that bill...?

The only way to combat that kind of money-driven power is through education and communication. But if you expect proof of the opposite from them, you are going to be waiting a long time, my friend. They are not going to provide the bullet that allows us to shoot their golden goose. That's just the way it is.

Well Kong, sorry to hear of your medical troubles, but that post rang a little sour.

First off, I think Kooky is pretty open-minded and even evaluator of the topic. I think if there was a reliable thing he could look at that supported the concept, he'd take it as it was. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're not open to the idea, it just means he requires a different burden of proof. Nobody knows what the hell women prefer, and like has already been said, they probably prefer whatever they're used to, or whoever they're with at the moment. Like I said before, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's a trivial point at best for most women, so who cares?

On that note, I know you don't like doctors, but just as a general point, since we're discussing all this, it is highly unlikely that there is any kind of organized medical conspriacy regarding circumcision. Speaking as somebody with a few MDs in the family as well as some close friends, it just isn't really possible. There is no oversight, coordination, or organization that could possibly orchestrate said conspiracy, and even if there was there would be a paper trail, whistle blowers, something. There isn't some dark cabal of doctor insiders that conspire to keep circumcision prominent, it's just the conventional wisdom in the US and what many parents continue to want for their kids. You guys always talk about what a huge moneymaking scheme it is, but that's rather sili.

The profit margins on circumcisions are not that big of a chunk of the medical industry and they have much more pressing concerns and revenue streams than foreskins. It's a prime issue to you guys because, well, you're into foreskins, but for the average GP it's not something of great concern. I'm sorry, but if you think there is some kind of intentional campaign within the medical community to keep circumcision rates high for that little fraction of revenue, then it just shows serious naivety about the medical and corporate worlds. Do the doctors get a brochure every month from circumcision headquarters? Is there a secret class in med school where they tell all the students they have to push for circumcision at every chance because the medical industry will collapse without it? Don't think so. Hospitals make money from $65 aspirin tablets and overnight billing - anything that take a doctor's and staff's time is already on the low side of fiscal benefit. They'd be just fine without ever performing circumcisions.

90% of doctors performing these types of surgeries are staff docs anyway, they don't individually make money from the surgery. And circumcision rates are dropping nationally, so I doubt they're really pushing it at most hospitals. From what I've been told they could care less what the parents decide, the option is just there if they want it. Plenty of doctors are good and informed people, they're not all money coveting jackasses that don't have any empathy for their patients, which is basically what the "circumcision conspiracy theory" suggests they are.

OK..Kong. Why not just say, "I don't have any other polls than the one I had posted before". Thats all I am getting at. Graves told Neo that, "most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises". You then chimed in with, "Those polls do exist...but as we have learned from several outspoken members here, they don't count!". You b oth used the word "POLLS"..plural. I was only interested in what other polls he and you are referring to. Thats it. If you or graves don't have these "Polls"(plural) then I call BS and you guys should not being telling people that, "most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises".

Once again, to my knowledge there have only been two polls posted here and both were useless due to the test subjects. If there are polls other than the ones that have been discussed already, then lets see them. I have a feeling their aren't because someone would be on here talking about how this new "poll" shows what women really like.

Kong, I am not asking you to "prove" anything to me. My feelings about circ have not changed and are likely not to in the near future. I am still planning NOT to have it done if I ever have a son. I believe it should be left up to the individual. We are actually on the same side Kong. It just really bothers me when someone throws around certain "poll" data without backing it up. I think most people view a "poll" as somewhat of a study or fact-finding mission. It is in that regard that I comb through such "polls" to find out every detail from them that I can to verify their credibility.



MrD & MDC;
I agree with both of you. A woman is more than likely to vote for whatever her man currently is, and vote against what her last "idiot" boyfriend was.
Any kind of Poll indicating a woman's preference has to be taken with a huge grain of salt to begin with. Ask anyone who has been married!


Swank;
"Nobody knows what the hell women prefer, and like has already been said, they probably prefer whatever they're used to, or whoever they're with at the moment."
If you ever get married, you'll find out just how true this is! And not even talking about sex here..with everything....paint color, carpet color, dishes EVERYTHING!

kooky..

BTW Kong...the reason I seem so obsessed with polls is because polling is part of my job. The polls I conduct are much more scientific than any poll anyone could ever on a woman's sexual preference.

kooky

Lord, I really don't have the energy to do this tonight...!

swank, please don't get personal. Yes, I don't like doctors. My post, however, was not "sour", just talking. I think it is good that you finally own up to your bias, which is that you come from a family of doctors and circulate in a social atmosphere of medical professionals. I think our readers should know that. However, I do not view circumcision as a "medical conspiracy". I only view the medical industry for what it is...a business. Plain and simple. If you go to a tire shop, the salesman there is not going to tell you your tires are good for another year. He's going to sell you new tires to meet his quota. Same thing with hospitals. They offer circumcision as a service. They are not going to present the truth, but try to make the procedure seem necessary to a patient... thus, the circumcision program running on the childbirth channel. It is only unethical in that both sides of the issue were not presented. It was deceptive because it trades on our basic trust of the medical industry to sell a useless and sometimes damaging product that has no true health value. Don't try to portray me as a "conspiracy theorist" when I am merely aware of the scam. Doctors are not angels of mercy or saintly healers, just highly trained business men in a specialized industry.

kooky, I am not trying to skirt the issue or be deceptive. I simply do not have the energy to tackle what would be hours of internet research trying to find these polls to appease you. I have a life. Believe what you want.

I am going to put my foot down on this right now. I am a moderator here. I have been given permission to ban any trouble makers in the FR forum at my discretion. I have had this permission for a good while but have never implemented it because I believe in FREE SPenis EnlargementECH. However, there are a couple debate tactics that will no longer be permitted here.

#1 -- NO Penis EnlargementRSONAL ATTACKS... a member calling anyone posting here "crazy", "loonie", "cultish" or anything of that manner will be warned via PM by me. If the personal attacks continue, the offending member will be temporarily banned, first for 1 day, then 1 week, then 1 month, and if the behavior continues, finally permanently. The restorers who participate in this sub-forum have certain beliefs, and have the RIGHT to discuss their beliefs without harassment.

#2 -- CALLING BULLSHIT... this is no longer allowed. It is a bullying tactic whose sole purpose is to force a civil discussion into an argument and confuse our readers. If you believe that someone has made an incorrect statement, it is up to you to provide countering evidence, which you may do in a civil and respectful manner. The very name of this debate tactic ("calling bullshit") is a personal attack on a member's credibility, by suggesting they are being deceptive, and will not be tolerated. If you do not believe there is any difference, for example, in female pleasure during intercourse between cut and uncut men, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You cannot try to bully someone who said "women like uncut better" into doing so. We all have the right to express our opinions.

We WILL stay civil here from now on!

Otherwise...

:blasting:

Ok Kong....

So now anyone who makes a statement doesn't have to PROVE that statement, only the person who disagrees with it has the burden of proof? That sounds kind of backwards. I was only asking for these Polls in question...more than one. Thats it.

I did not iniatially disagree with ANYONE's opinion, only ask to see these "polls" you and Graves brought into question. If you or Graves know of these polls, it should not be hours of internet research to find them. All I asked is to see these other "polls". Why can't someone just provide them instead of getting all hostile?

I provided all the proof I had at the time, that the two polls presented here were useless and I have detailed throroughly why Swank's was just as useless as your poll.

Yes, that is correct, kooky. If you believe that gravesubject was stating a falsehood, it is your burden to prove it. It is not your option to arbitrarily call him a "bullshitter" and demand that he provide proof to you that his opinion is correct. That is a personal attack. I personally do not think gravesubject is a "bullshitter". He is an intelligent and well-spoken member of this forum and should not be subject to harassing or flaming comments like that.

For future reference, please see below:

ACCEPTABLE COMMENT:

"I have only seen a couple polls here on this forum and neither was very convincing to me. I would like to see more of these polls."

UNACCEPTABLE COMMENT:

"That is bullshit. Prove your opinion immediately!"

If you feel so passionately about graves' gravely mistaken opinion, then you have the burden to prove that he is so horribly mistaken or so blatantly lying. Grave, like the rest of us, have lives and interests outside of appeasing you or swank or any of the other members who feel compelled to censor the restoration forum.

If you can provide proof that only one poll exists that depicts female preference for uncut cock, I would be eager to see it.

The purpose of this sub-forum is for restoring men or men interested in restoring or basic skin expansion to discuss their methods, progress and feelings about circumcision. Those looking for confrontation and argument should go elsewhere. Why don't you go to the hanger forum and berate them for hanging 60 lb weights from their penis and ask them to prove that longer cocks are more preferable...?

Thank you.

OK Kong. Which one does my original statement fall under?

In fact, lets look at the entire original thread that started all of this.

My original statement was;
"Also...as aside and this can be taken up elsewhere---

Gravesubject, where did you get this from?
"Also, most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises"

I have never seen this and am not aware of any usable polls that show any preference."

So where in that statement am I calling anyone a liar or being disrespectful?

And my proof? I have presented it quite a few times.
I have said that the only two polls posted here were worthless and exactly why they were.

Your poll, presented here;
http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15587

Is useless because of this line;
"Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newletter."

I don't think there is any doubt to anyone familair with polling would argue that the test subject here and the data received are skewed due to the nature of the procedure in which the test subjects were recruited.

Swank's Poll, as presented here;
http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15637

Is useless due to the limiting number of test subjects who have had sex with both cut and intact partners as described here, "In my opinion, this is not nearly enough women to get a proper across the board, reliable result. I will also add that from here it goes on to say that 16.5% had had sex with both.

"In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men."

Now...16.5% of 145 is 24. So now we have 24 women who have had sex with both."

I think anyone would agree that a poll taken of 24 women on their opinion of their preference toward cut or uncut can only be described as inconclusive at best.

My entire detailing of Swank's poll can be found at the same thread.



I can only prove that only one poll has been posted here. That was one of my original statements to begin with.


No where have I tried to censor you or any other user in this forum or any other. I only asked for clarification on his statement, that was all. In fact, I never even addressed you until you saw fit to defend his statement instead of allowing him to defend or clarify his own statement.

1. DLD alone makes the calls on who gets banned, no mods are empowered to do this as they please. I have discussed it with other moderators. DLD has outlined specific 'bannable' behavior and that's the only thing that will result in that particular action. There are no "enforcer" mods with a green light to toss people they don't like.

2. Mod's don't have the power to dictate what kind of opinions and posting are not acceptable, that's already clearly outlined in the rules. Questioning something or expressing a contrary opinion to Kong or anybody else is not a malicious or personal attack unless it's presented in this way(i.e. the post is personally attacking the person, not the content of their posts). This is an attempt to set up for banning anybody that questions the conventional wisdom around here.

Pretty funny that the theme is free speech, and yet rules severely restricting speech are slapped down immediately. Any topic on this forum is up for debate and questioning, just as it was before. Kooky is well within his rights to say "where are these polls you are talking about?" if somebody makes the claim that they're out there. Accountability for the validity of information is on the poster, otherwise, well, there is no accountability. If somebody says something, you are well with in your rights to say "show me, or tell me where to find it."

If I have this correct, it is now against forum rules to question something somebody says unless you provide contrary evidence in your post? So then nobody is responsible for proving anything that they say or claim. Hmm, sounds like a license for some people to just say anything they want without fear of inconvenient facts getting in the way . . . That's not free speech and it's not even an open debate. It's raw censorship that I do believe has been cooked up by one individual and this forum, any forum, is a lesser thing with those kinds of rules in place. It ceases to be a discussion at that point. It's a forum that is used to discuss FR and related issues, not to exclusively advance the opinions of one or two individuals. Disagreements and debate are what make forums tick, not the opinions of the most frequent and involved posters squashing any competing ideas with threats.

Now that that is out of the way, I wouldn't say having doctors in the family is really a bias (who says I like my family, they could be assholes?). Anyway, several are, as well as close friends, I've actaully mentioned this several times before. So, seeing that I know some of these coniving bastards (my sister in particular), I can tell you that I have spoken to them about his circumcision business before. I'm not talking out of my ass here, they just don't really care abou it. They're well aware that it doesn't offer any great medical benefit, but many parents continue to want it done and won't hear otherwise.

So far as doctors all just being businessmen, well, is anybody that is paid for their work necessarily greedy and unethical by default then? No doctors out there care about their work, have concern for their patients, associate with the human condition? They are, for the most part, very normal (whatever that is), and would never bully people into getting useless surgery to fatten the coffers of whatever hospital or medical group they work for. The only doctors who are functionally "businessmen" are private practitioners, and I promise you they aren't performing a great deal of circumcisions every year.

The point I make that circumcision is far from a cash cow and a very minor blip on the medical radar goes entirely unaddressed. I don't believe it is in any way coarse to suggest that Kong and others have called it a conspiracy-like situation because, um, they have. If you like I will take the time to go back and collect a few quotes, otherwise, you ought to just drop the issue.

Finally, another word on the issue of debate "tactics." I know that in my own experience, I don't employ any specific "tactics," all I attempt to do is make my point. Placing an arbitrary and poorly defined label on just terms, phrases, ect. somebody can use as an unfair "tactic" is a bit out of line. What is not allowed is malicious personal attacks devoid of content (ex: "hey, you're an asshole, get lost, fuck you, ect.") and trolling-type behavior. Attempting to define what types of adjectives are unacceptable to use in reference to the nature of individual posts, internet groups, ideas, ect, well, that's damn near Orwellian.

The fact is, calling something crazy isn't a malicious insult. Hey, I think that people who say the human race was started by aliens are crazy because I think it has no merit. I think that saying there is an intentional effort by medical professionals to get parents to circumcise for the meager profits is crazy because I believe it has no merit. Same criteria, same terminology. Any attempt to curtail that type of expression isn't good moderating, it's the restrcition of freedom of speech on a board that prides itself on free expression and it's not right. People are banned from forums for blatantly disrupting them for no reason and causing trouble for the sake of it, not having opinions or posting in a way that a particular mod doesn't like.

The fact that some people around just don't want competing opinions in the forum or their posts ever questioned at all has never been more clear.

DLD ultimately stands behind his moderators and I am not going to tolerate this confrontational behavior. The rules are simple and fair. No harassment. No demands. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be free to say what they want without undue criticism from either of you. I have already had one veteran forum member quit because of this behavior and I will not have more of the same. If you persist in arguing about this I will consider it harassment and invoke a termporary ban. You have been publicly warned.

Kooky said:

Gravesubject, where did you get this from?
"Also, most polls suggest that women by far prefer un-cut penises"

I have never seen this and am not aware of any usable polls that show any preference.

Click to expand...

Kooky,

My response was based on past cursory surveys of surveys and was by no means comprehensive. It was a quick response to Neo Enigma's statement:

Neo Enigma said:

So needless to say that's narrowed my sexual activity to near to none cause girls in the States usually dont like uncut especially if the foreskin cant be pulled back at all.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

I was trying to reassure him that not all women hate an uncut penis, although it does appear to be an attitude more prevalent among the ladies of the States. I was unaware of, at the time that I wrote that comment, that most of the for/against preference claims that I had seen were based on one semi-credible study in the BJU and many, less-credible internet surveys.

So, in response to your statement about a dearth of usable polls on the topic of preference: having spent the past hour going over various polls, I agree that most of them, on both sides of the issue, are unscientific and therefore not reliable. That said, I still stand by my opinion: I don't think that the majority of women in the world, or even the U.S., are biased against circumcised penises.

Since you do surveys (professionally?) I am curious as to what methodological faults you find with the BJU survey (aside from the self-selected population problem, that one is glaring)? Polling is a valid, scientific assessment tool, but is very, very easy to get wrong, both intentionally and through poor design.

Cheers!


BTW, I thought that this was a funny and telling read on this whole topic:

http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2000/09/11/circumcision/index.html

Kooky,
Disregard the "(Professionally?)"; I just found your post wherein you said it was your job.

Cheers!

Kong,

You have GOT to be kidding. You are going to ban people because of the things outlined above?

If so, I am out of here. This will be no better than Thunder's. I do not think DLD feels this way.

Freedom of speech is a precious thing. You should not so easily flaunt it. No specifics, but I have read things from you that were not so nice. Including in this thread, threatening people.

Bigger

Hey Grave. Glad you responded. Now you and I can have this discussion as I meant for it to be.
I will try and address your comments individually without straying to far from the original topic;

"So, in response to your statement about a dearth of usable polls on the topic of preference: having spent the past hour going over various polls, I agree that most of them, on both sides of the issue, are unscientific and therefore not reliable."

This was one of my main focus points to begin with. As I had stated, the only polls I have seen here(one for, one against) were both completely unreliable. I was interested if you had any new polls to share and where those polls might have come from. Like I said, I do on occasion poll in my line of work and I become very intertested when one uses such a tool to support or defend a particular issue. I hope you notice I was the first to throuroughly detail the faults of Swank's poll presented here and by no means was I taking sides. I found Swanks's poll to be just as flawed as the poll Kong posted.


"That said, I still stand by my opinion: I don't think that the majority of women in the world, or even the U.S., are biased against circumcised penises."

The problem I have with this Grave, is that I don't feel you were stating this as an opinion. I feel that your reference to polls tried to convey this as a fact. I hope you know that I have no problems with you, or anyone else here expressing their opinions. My opinion on the subject is that I don't think many women give it much thought. I think women relate sex far more emotionally than men do and therefore are able to experience much more pleasure through the intamacy of the act.


"Since you do surveys (professionally?) I am curious as to what methodological faults you find with the BJU survey (aside from the self-selected population problem, that one is glaring)? Polling is a valid, scientific assessment tool, but is very, very easy to get wrong, both intentionally and through poor design."

Aside from the most glaring fault with the BJU survey, I also feel that there were not near enough test subjects to merit any reliable consideration. I don't feel that 139 test subject are a reliable test group for such a large function of the survey ( Do women prefer cut or uncut). I also find fault with this line as well, "the results were analysed for age, number of lifetime partners, preputial status of the most recent partner, preference for vaginal orgasms (as defined below) and their preference for a circumcised or intact penis." While I have no problem with these survey definitions, I feel that nationality should have been considered as well as it is my opinion that American women would have a slightly higher chance of prefering cut as opposed to european women who may have a higher preference for uncut. I also feel that this poll was intentionally skewed to get the desired results. If a person were to poll women how they feel about abortion, but only used women who subscribed to a right to life newsletter, you have to ask what type of result are they looking for to begin with?


"Polling is a valid, scientific assessment tool, but is very, very easy to get wrong, both intentionally and through poor design."

I agree with this statement 100%. As I stated above, I believe the BJU poll to be skewed intentionally to get the desired results. In my line of work, I have the distinct advantage of being able to poll EVERYONE involved or with an opinion to get very straightfoward results. An example;
Lets say I am told to go to "X Brand" electronic plant to find out how the 500 employees feel about their benefeits package. I have access to all 500 employees. Infact, I do not turn in my report until I have interviewed all 500 employees. I also am able to target every sub group conceivable including but not limited to; age, length of service, departments and family or maritial status. Since I am able to target every one of the 500 employees, my surveys can be much more defining than any poll targeting the preference of women's sexual behavior. How many women would have to be interviewed even to get a tiny percentage and still be able to include age, number or amount of sexual experience and nationality? It is this reason why I am so interested in polls of this nature. I don't feel that it is anyway possible to get usable results when the population at large is so huge.

Just my two cents there Graves. Also, I agree with almost everything else you said in your initial post and I hope you were not offended by my original post asking for a reference to your polling info.

kooky

Bib;

I agree with your assessment as well. No where do I feel I was out of line and I believe I was within my rights as a subscribing member to voice my initail questions on where Grave had gotten his information.

Kooky..

In no way has Kooky, or myself, acted in a bannable fashion. Suggesting that questioning your desire to ban anybody that simply posts in a manner you do not like seems to be another attempt to threaten anybody that posts an unfavborable opinion around here. The rules for banning are clearly stated and I have previously discussed the matter with DLD and other moderators. Nobody has the power to simply decide what types of speech and posting will suddenly become unacceptable, just because that particular person does not like them. Questioning and debate are considered just fine in other forums on MOS, and they are just fine here.

The rules for banning have been made clear by DLD - as a mod you do not have the power to impliment your own criteria for banning. This is an attempt to control the content of the forum and to try to intimidate those who would potentially disagree with what the majority opinions, namely those professed by Kong, is around here. I do not believe this new attempt at speech restrction would be used to prosecute anybody with an opinion commensurate with those of the moderator who is attempting the restrction. That's not what these forums are about. They are not a tool for one person to espouse their opinions and ideas, it's a place where anything pertaining to the forum topic can be discussed from any persepective, and the same rules that are used in all the other forums are still applicable here.

Attempting to label any questioning of your "rewriting" of the forum rules as harrasment is just an attempt to squash any protest of the action. Nothing taking place here could possibly warrant banning, and to even attempt to do so would clearly demonstrate a blatant desire for censorship.

Kooky and Graves are adults and settled their issue in a cordial and mature fashion. Graves was not offended, nor was Kooky trying to offend. Intervention or a new "banning mandate" from a moderator was unwarranted and entirely uncesessary.