" I should have known it based on my readings in psychology like "Thinking Fast And Slow" by Daniel Kahneman (a terrific book). People (at least including those who have replied) can't separate the words in that post from all the other views I've expressed in other posts. They think I must not mean what I say. Silly me."

Indeed. A darned shame that they are trying to detect a coherent worldview in your postings.

Anyone who has seen how you apply an analogy in one post to make a claim you deny in another should know that each post exists separately.

How dare they hold you to anything you say between posts?

"The other is that people are incensed at the idea that I would think anyone here is on the verge of engaging in sexual activity with children. "

No. Not if you have evidence you're willing to cite.

But that you want to make a very specific defamatory accusation and aim it at a poster ( whichever one you're intending ) WITHOUT allowing them to defend themself from the accusation means that you fail ethics 101.

And your slur was about what they "want" to do. ( Whoever you are targeting. ) You refused to frame it in a way that it didn't claim that some individual ( or more ) at GC wanted to violate the law. Furthermore it was done to accuse only posters who had publicly stated that they were law-abiding; so it goes to the very heart of GC's continued existence and our reasons for Rule 6.

I find it appalling after all the previous talk on this that you still cannot understand why slandering the claims by law-abiding peds that they ARE law-abiding might be both unethical and dangerous to the forum.

Any REAL claims backed by citations are allowable so long as they don't violate Rule 6. But we take accusations of hypocrisy and potential criminal activity more seriously around here than as to allow you to casually insult others to make some point. ( A point you might not even ask to be held accountable for in a subsequent post. )

I don't expect you to comprehend why unsubstantiated defamatory accusations aren't permitted. But I expect you to comply. And your perpetual complaint about this basic staple of integrity in debate seems to indicate that you believe it is up for "appeal." It isn't.

Dante