### (Closed) Discussion to create a process to un-ban members ###

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. What you say is not only unresponsive but it is veritably untrue. Those who look can see this.

1. As pointed out by krispos42 in the OP,

"On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was banned from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers."

Now you are pretending to not know the context in which rDigital's post was made. You are doing this by ignoring what is in front of you and the fact that his poll was apparently posted in a satirical way about a half-hour after someone else started a post claiming that ""Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals." See #30 for a fuller explanation.

You say, and you obviously falsely say without qualification, that rDigital said "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers." Anyone who follows the link that you provided can immediately see that he did not say that. They can see that he posted a two-question poll in which other Duers could agree or disagree. In prompt #2, with which 61% of the responding DUers agree, he wrote

"Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers" (emphasis added)

Didn't he say "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers"? He did as much as your false statement that he said (as only reflected in his prompt #1, "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

Why do you need to say, without qualification, that he said that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" when that is obviously not true? You can't truthfully say that without your special interpretation because he likewise said, under your logic, that "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers". He didn't even vote in his own poll, and you can't truthfully claim that he voted in his own poll to support your alleged belief that he said, without qualification, that "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers."

2. What, specifically, is this "rw nonsense" of which you speak?

Is it "rw nonsense" for a DUer to take a poll with alternative choices? Is it "rw nonsense" for a DUer to take a poll with two prompts, one of which is "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers".

Is it not sufficient for you to know that rDigital never took a position on the two prompts and never voted in the poll? Is it not sufficient for you to know that rDigitial gave two choice and most of those who were polled agreed with the statement ("his statement," using your criteria) "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers."?

Why is that? Why is it that you are so quick to defame him by claiming that he somehow believes in "rw nonsense" and that he said, and only said, that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

Your claim about what he said, without noting his second prompt (i.e., "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers.&quot , is intellectually dishonest and factually untrue.