suppressing information
 like failing to index a blog
  is also un- & anti-democratic

.. censored inputs ...

  .. indicate systemic bias ...

    .. and may lead to poster radicalisation


[update, 17Jun'11, update, 19Jun'11.]

A funny thing happened after recently submitting what I regard as a *fair* comment and having it censored; my corresponding blog-report here has so far not been indexed; I don't suppose we really have to wonder why?

"This happened once before
when I came to your door
No reply
They said it wasn't you
but I saw you peep through
your window"

- democracy's the loser...

Censored inputs indicate systemic bias and may lead to poster radicalisation.


PS It's not all inputs that are censored (just one would be too many), but what is censored indicates the (erring!) ideology of the censors. That AusBC is tax-payer supported and they dare to un- & anti-democratically censor anything is proof of their corruption and treachery both.


Update, 17Jun'11; Progress. From the google cache @ appr 07:30, this post and the preceding 'message' post have now been indexed, but the home-page cache is still old = down-level. If one wonders how they do that, I'd say 'bad fingers.'

It can be proven that I submitted a comment (I keep the receipts), and that indexing was interfered with. The question only becomes: Whose bad fingers?



Update, 19Jun'11; Progress? Not much, if any; still some down-level indexing. This article is deliberately duplicated, partly as a test.

A bit of nontrivia: Consider auto-da-fé[1], then heretic[2], a thesaurus entry for which is listed below[3]. If we dump all the supernatural implications (as totally invalid), the issue then is truth vs. lies. I advocate for truth & justice; in that frame it is the liars (commission/omission) who are the heretics, aka recusants (recalls Marxisant. Haw!) Also not just by-the-way, 'belief' is what people do in the absence of evidence; hence on principle I am *not* a believer.

Interfering with free-speech is a crime against democracy, and invalidates the perpetrator-platform.



[1] auto-da-fé  n. (pl. autos-da-fé) 1 hist. ceremonial judgement of heretics by the Spanish Inquisition. 2 public burning of heretics. [Portuguese, = act of the faith] [POD]

[2] heretic  n. 1 person believing in or practising religious heresy. 2 holder of an unorthodox opinion.  heretical adj.[ibid.]

[3] ›noun
he was condemned as a heretic and executed at the stake
DISSIDENT, dissenter, nonconformist, unorthodox thinker, heterodox thinker, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast, schismatic, renegade; sceptic, agnostic, atheist, non-believer, unbeliever, idolater, idolatress, pagan, heathen; separatist, sectarian, revisionist; rare tergiversator, recreant, recusant, nullifidian; archaic paynim.
-opposite(s): CONFORMIST; BELIEVER. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]



message to unleashed moderators and commenters

.. censorship is ...

  .. un- & anti-democratic ...

    .. censors are democracy-criminals


Free speech is an essential part of democracy; only so may we exchange facts and opinions - obvious.

Censorship - of fair comment - happens far too often on unleashed; just once is already damnable. So, message to unleashed moderators: Kindly stop censoring fair comment.

Message to unleashed commenters: IF you post a fair comment to unleashed AND it is censored, THEN you may post your comment here as a comment; if I judge it as 'fair comment' then I will publish it.

A good collection of censored comments may expose the bias of the censoring moderators, and provide evidence to support more serious actions, see below.

(*Unfair* comment would be abuse, extreme ad-homs or silly language, it's just common sense and no one needs it.)

 .. specific requirements and recommendations regarding comments to Unleashed:
  "Comments which the ABC considers to be abusive, defamatory, discriminatory or off-topic, or otherwise unlawful, will not be published." 

Comments based on, and/or responding to already published comments should be allowed, also with some tolerance - that'd only be fair = normal democratic conversation.

In any case, a good next step against unfair AusBC censorship is to take complaint(s) to your local Federal MP.

Another possible next step would be the appropriate ombudsman or state-sponsored legal aid.

All fair comment welcome here - trolls needn't bother.

PS Copies of comments posted to unleashed, never to be seen again = censored, submitted here as a comment should include a) the post-point, b) the unl-thread "name" or number, and c) the approximate comment posting-time.

i.e. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm on "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," censored comment posted 10Jun'11,3:51am.


censorious AusBC unleashed moderators should be gaoled - if not worse - tumbrels!

Two comments submitted to "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," neither published. GRRR!

1. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm

{The A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly killing x (the 'lucky' victims) and leading to the lingering death of y, altogether about ¼mio dead, is a study in complexity.

«Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].»

A well-entrenched propaganda technique is to deploy a deception so shocking that it causes wide-spread stupefaction; see the exaggerated estimate [3], then ¼mio horribly dead Japanese appears comparatively 'worth it.' Further, there's the contradiction [4] - the 'official narrative' fails as multiply, deliberately deceptive.

The 'unconditional' demand was a psy-op to *delay* surrender until the bombs were ready; proof = Hirohito continued as emperor.

What the US did get was otherwise unobtainable data on U-235 and Pu-239 bombs on 'live' civilian targets, simultaneously 'sending a message' illustrating their brutality, especially to Russia. Similar messaging techniques occur along the Deir Yassin through Cast Lead time-line.}

2. Re: Anon@08Jun'11,5:36:52pm

{One of two possible reasons may explain assertions contradicting historical fact, namely ignorance or malice.

[Van Crevel]
«"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."»

[Golda Meir]
«At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying... You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”
Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, ... Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.”»

One assumes that only enemies are to be targeted, making the entire world - which currently includes Israel, classified as 'enemy.'

In 'normal' criminal justice, the threat of assault is usually considered equivalent to the assault itself, and making threats as blackmail = coercion & intimidation, etc..

The "Samson Option" = greatest 'suicide-bomber' threat possible, ever.}