mods, I can address them with derision.
You are advocating for children (repeat, children) to be injected with an experimental gene therapy that’s never been tried on humans before (large numbers are already dying from these jabs), and without parental consent.
That sounds a bit Nazi to me.
And you don’t seem to understand that you are actually breaking the law with your policy here.
Do you want me to explain the law to you…? (God, it’s a hard job thesedays)
A lot of resonance here…
Karen, it’s an age old problem (how violence is used), which I would love to discuss further. Unfortunately I’m about to be the victim of some digital violence - because they are afraid of me.
I’d like to hear which law you think is being broken, Rob. Not being snide. I’m sure plenty are, but can you elucidate a bit?
Regarding moderation here. I’m entirely in favour of insisting on civil discourse at all times. Name-calling, and insulting other posters should be taboo. However NO topic, and NO response to any topic, so long as civilly expressed, should be censored.
NONE whatever, ever. If censorship starts at 5F, I for one shall be leaving.
We should have absolute freedom of speech, so long as expressed with due courtesy to others here. Slagging outsiders - the arrant criminal consigliere Fauci, for example - is another matter. Clearly there are plenty of players in the present shitstorm who are serious criminals, and should be called out as such. Even so, I’d counsel that doing it with restrained language carries more weight in readers’ minds than vulgar insults. Once that’s allowed, you’re on the slippery slope that leads to the degraded behaviour still on display - and un-restrained by anyone - that’s brought the Hulk to its current condition. It’s possible to point out that another poster here is apparently advocating for behaviour for which the Nazis were condemned, without it descending into hostile and hurtful name-calling. It’s all a matter of how the language is managed, really.
I too happen to believe that advocating for the poison-stabs, knowing what we know about their effect now, strays dangerously close to nazi-atrocity territory. Considering the death and maiming toll so far, there is NO possible justification for them, especially for children. And even if there are opposing camps, with some asserting - entirely sincerely - that they are NOT harmful, and that they DO do good, the precautionary principle comes into play: zero use, outside of trials with fully-informed volunteers, until proven beyond doubt to be harmless and genuinely helpful (good luck with that! 
)
Speaking of restraint: who are MODS? And was there an election? I don’t remember.
As to what policy towards criminals is best: I always strive to advocate for - and to exemplify in my own behaviour (a difficult task!) - strict ahimsa: the buddhist concept of non-violence, harmlessness. That has to be balanced, though, with the obvious basic right to restrain criminal violence in others, and to do self-defence if attacked (like a Shaolin monk!). It’s also right, I think to advocate, and to carry out when possible, prosecution of criminals and insistence that convicted criminals must be obliged to make substantial - not merely token - amends for their crimes. You’ll know that I advocate for extensive compulsory community service for convicts; together with largescale confiscation of their ill-gotten wealth: reduction to the average ranks. And in cases of incorrigibility - Gates, for example, or Fauci again - long term, maybe lifelong, surveillance and restraint is also worth considering, until they’re finally deemed to be no longer a danger. I see no unacceptability in advocating for that. Brainless confinement in prisons, though, has always seemed to me to be an abomination.
No Rob you can not address any poster with derision. That’s the bottom line.
It’s the top line of the guidelines
I ask again - hoping for a response - who are MODS, and when were you elected? And when did all posters here approve a detailed code of behaviour: what is, and what is not, acceptable. Was I asleep at the time, and did I miss this essential direct-democracy process? Please clarify.
RobG, I don’t know what ‘Nazi sounds’ you think you are hearing. When has the poster you are abusing advocated injecting children…experimental…etc?
PP: “I agree with you by and large about forcing people (especially young people) to take a vaccine that had as many problems and as little testing as this one.”
I’ve no interest in your other swipes but you might explain this.
Hi Rhisiart you ask: “I ask again - hoping for a response - who are MODS, and when were you elected? And when did all posters here approve a detailed code of behaviour: what is, and what is not, acceptable. Was I asleep at the time, and did I miss this essential direct-democracy process? Please clarify”.
It’s not a secret, the Mods have been presented
Who are the moderators? We are three regular posters on the board. You can find a list of the current moderators here
Was supposed to be temporary, but no-one picked up on it when it was proposed to have a process for electing them, and also for passing the board ownership over to the posters.
Thanks for the information. Please note that whenever I click the ‘Who are the moderators?’ link, it just brings me back to the same page repeatedly.
Belatedly, I’ve had a look at the moderation and guideline posts. Things are clearer now. Should have looked first. Please forgive arsey-versey dodderings! 
Hey no worries. It’s a link to where you can look for another link - not sure why it’s done like that, maybe it’s because more than one person is involved in writing the code
I broadly agree @RhisiartGwilym, not least in regard to the practical day to day keeping of precepts. But in my view we are talking about evil, not criminal behaviour. Smoking crack is criminal. It is not evil.
Ambushing and shooting a rival crack dealer to death is evil, depriving them of their life in a premeditated way. And, yes, criminal.
This is why I explicitly referred to “evildoers”, twice.
If I kill ants without intent to do so, by walking on top of them, that does not break the first precept. If I boil the kettle and pour it in the nest, I consciously break the precept.
The use of courts, year long inquiries that appear to have become an end in themselves, and similar fruitless “within the paradigm” efforts are not working. Things have gone too far. Summary justice, to encourage the others, is overdue.
I quite agree, it sounds Nazi-like to me too. But, come on, who on this board advocates this? This is not TLN!
If the scammers push this thing much further, summary justice by revolutionary tribunal is what they’re likely to get.
After the dust has settled - and the blood has dried - though, it will still be necessary to re-build some sort of civil society, with - presumably - genuinely un-corrupted courts dealing real justice promptly, won’t it?
A lot of the plotters would presumably escape the first wave of lynch-mob justice, and would still be required to answer for their crimes, and make amends.
Doubtless, quite a lot will get away with it, and die naturally, un-arraigned. That’s such a common pattern for large-scale human criminality. The real USAmerican and zionistani plotters behind the 11/9 false flag are well on the way to that escape. The truth about that atrocity will likely only get universally admitted into official history after they’re all safely dead.
(This post is not aimed at anyone in particular)
The reality is that the vast majority of those who advocate vaccinating kids aren’t nazis, they’re parents - who think (for reasons unexplained) that vaccines for kids must be a good idea, because after all we’re doing it to adults, most of whom are happy or relieved about it. Plenty of people in the med field are also under delusions that it’s somehow logical to extend the programme to children, a logic induced by fear of looking in the box and perhaps discovering their real duty.
The problem with throwing around the F-word (and constructing the gallows in advance of any reckoning process) is that it makes the case against vaccines seem, to those we might be trying to persuade, to be driven by political hate. We’ve seen how the charge so easily spills over onto everyone, reaching outer space quicker than an Imperial College deaths forecast 
People will be quick to demand retribution if they discover they’ve been duped!
Thank God for ‘Long Covid Kids’, an organisation campaigning for 12-15 year olds in Scotland to be vaccinated. See what they did there? See how they rail against establishment ‘failings’? Will the establishment buckle under the people power pressure? Will it be a victory for the common man? (Saw the link over on the LH. No comments as yet.)
Spot on @Jamie. A newly minted pressure group and a few photo ops, it’s directly out of the Bernays play book.
Maybe the moderation policy needs a link to Godwins Law?
Here’s another @KarenEliot ; Teens for Vaccines. (What’s next, Yoof for Covid Troof?) Anyway, just remove the parent from the equation et voila.
The same kind of Bad Parents who probably “belittle” their kids for thinking they’re girls with dicks, pardon my directness.
Tch, tch. Lucky we’ve had the discussion about moderation and free speech!!