HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!

Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment. Would it help the site to list what sites are banned for sauce?

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!

Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment. Would it help the site to list what sites are banned for sauce?

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rational, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!

Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment. Would it help the site to list what sites are banned for sauce?

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!

Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment.

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!

Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment.

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH.

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?

When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?

We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH.

In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.