You could have saved me a lot of time reading your post by merely replying, "Injured innocence! Veiled insult! Attibution of motive!" Too bad, in our initial exchange you seemed like a decent person.
I posted to someone else calling them on the implication that the mods would yank posts based on opposition to Ann. You enter the discussion and maintain the opposition point of view. The extent of your support is that the mods are taken from the body of freepers and are representative of the group as a whole. I disagree, unless the sample is random that assertion is nonsensical. You have nothing to support this view but conjecture. (I will speculate now that you are skittish due to flames from various freepers - but not the mods, or at least, not in that capacity). You further add that I am "safe" because of my views (after all the sum total of one's views can be discerned by what one posts, hmm?) You imply that I can be lumped in with "all of them" because of your view of my views. When I object you still offer no support of you original point, but instead get upset at me for calling you on what you have implied. I note you did not deny what I had concluded - you just told me to mind my own business. You may not like it, but that type of comment on a public forum is pointedly laughable. I advised you to attack me if you couldn't support your point - I guess you took my advise.
"Injured innocence! Veiled insult! Attibution of motive!" ...
Yup, I think those are covered (you missed "projection!"). You tell me... where I have misrepresented the exchange? BTW I still think you are a decent person. Human too. Just like me.