Reply #91: With respect. I find these rule proposals offensive and alarming.

[Code_Name_D]

The admin is not above making mistakes. But they have shown to have the power to learn from those mistakes in an objective manner.

However, this can not be said of the DU community at large. Especially when it comes to issues of maintaining the integrity of the debating environment. And even more so when the DU community dose not have sufficient time to weigh the arguments revolving around the issues.

I applaud the mods final action to bring the General discussion room back into sanity. I myself have been one of the voices demanding action. However. The rules changes proposed her will not address the issues at hand, and risk the General Discussion board into a "Clark only" board.

I am out right alarmed by the probation. For these issues are in fact at the vary heart of the manner of the integrity of the United States of America. Such prohibitions of topics IS censorship of the worst order for they directly attack the point of many arguments. They also seek to force an ignorance of current political realties.

I wish the mods to heavily consider the issues currently being debated in the GDB. Currently, Wesley Clark's past is beginning to show numerous connections and dealing with the Republican party. He has been invited to, and has accepted, opportunities to address an official Republican forums. He has raised money for Republican candidates, and has spoke in praise of seated Republican officials. It is the conclusion of many that this demonstrates a pattern of allegiance to the Republican party. A logical conclusion, and a natural summery of these points, is to charge Wesley Clark of being a republican.

But rule number 3;
Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden."

Specifically forbids the expression of this vary conclusion. Even though the supporters of the Clark Campaign do not dispute these things have taken place. But their implications are clear, shall the mods thus forbid expressions of knowledge or evidence of such actions? If not, will this not create a silk screen, through which critic's of Clark must dance behind? Where we can see the slowest of facts, but are not permitted to see the facts themselves? We hear swore words bleeped out all the time. But if I say type f---, is this censor truly successful, or becomes its own reducible?

If these arguments are the thrusts and conclusion of Clark's critics, than shall not probation #3 be interpreted as an informal endorsement of the Clark campaign? Is this the intentions of the moderators, to security indorse, through action, a specific candidate? Clark's critics ARE places at a real and present disadvantage by this probation. So to would the critics of Joe Leabermen, as well as the critics of the Texas state senator who broke ranks with his party, and has essentially handed five seats to the Republican party.

If this is left up to the members of the DU. I fear that the Clark supporters are numerous enough to call for, and enforce this probation. They no doubt cheer the moderators move to silence Clark's critics. They will no doubt celebrate the silencing of my voice, as I have made this vary argument, and work to support it. I am not the only one. Mike Maloy has made this vary same claim as well, shall the DU dismiss his stated opinion as well?