That seems silly. If the article is legitimate, within the scope of allowable discussions, and isn’t a copyright issue, why should we not be allowed to post it.
Find some C. Edmund Wrong posts from the election and you will see why.
RE: If the article is legitimate, within the scope of allowable discussions, and isn’t a copyright issue, why should we not be allowed to post it.
_____________________________
That was my question too...
All I know is this, I posted an article by C. Edmund Wright of the American Thinker and was suspended for a day.
This was the offending article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/trump_versus_bannon_is_trump_right.html
I was suspended again with the reason POSTING AN ARTICLE FROM A BANNED AUTHOR ( no name was provided ) two days ago and was only reinstated now.
I am puzzled as to who is/are unwelcome. That is why I asked this question.
That out of the way, my personal pet peeve is that POLITICO articles need to be posted in Bloggers, they can't be posted as news. It's ridiculous to fill out the entire article submission page and get a "POLITICO must be in Bloggers & Personal" message. Why POLITICO, specifically? It's trashy, sure, but then so is The Washington Post and we can post that as news.
It's been a long time since I've posted anything from POLITICO, so maybe it's changed back to normal, but still.
It is silly.
I don’t mind trudging through the mud of many posts, that is why I come here.
Having been the founder of a state channel on IRC with 10,000 users I am unable to comment on this because it will get me banned.
I will tell you the parties were great - statewide - every weekend. Women wanted to be with me and men wanted to be me. Then I grew up and I handed the channel to my top SOP. He ruined it. To this day I will not speak to him. Damned idiot. It could have been monetized. He could have been benevolent.
My benevolence payed off handsomely. I asked a chick on the channel flirting with me to explain Heisenberg uncertainty as a brush off, and when she did I married her.
C. Edmund Wright is a disturbed loon. On top of which he is not too bright and his “articles” are mostly worthless drivel. Feel free to follow him on American Thinker.