[bigmo]

Originally Posted by lindabaker

The controversy, as I can quickly gather, after my two week break from the forum, is mostly over a matter of removing content, that in Bill's, opinion, works against us all in terms of the "big picture." A decision to "pull" content should be the perogative of both of the founders. The big "thinking point" here is whether or not the founders should individually use and enforce their discernment skills. Is that loss of freedom? No, not really.

Everything you said was perfect until we reached this point where your dangerous, disinformation starts.

Removing disinfo (who said it was disinfo? You make this sound as if it is a matter of fact but it's not so you are misleading your reader) is a decision that is content based, not personal or political. When one founder knows not to give voice to those agents of wrong, dangerous, disinfo, (now we move from just disinfo to wrong, dangerous, disinfo. Can you explain how the information you are referring to is dangerous?) they should have the right to do so. If it splits the Project into two paths, then that is the best way to Ensure free speech. A positive B and K mitosis, so to speak. This way, members can get the best of both worlds, choose what to read, but still have both founders able to express individual discernment of that most important content!

Please be a little more careful of the language you use. Is it necessary to call someones information that they have spend valuable time developing, as dis-info and dangerous? Why would you say this unless you wish to push an agenda or have proof to the contrary.

Do you have proof?

Please don't 'protect' me or this forum from 'dangerous information'. We are quite capable of making that determination on our own.

Peace