Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial Policy
Margo redrafted these guidelines for the new site, and we'll stick by them, subject to your input:
G'day. Since I started Webdiary in 2000, I've envisaged it as a space for civil discourse between Australians of different political viewpoints – a democratic conversation. I was heavily influenced in this idea by my experience covering Pauline Hanson's 1998 election campaign, when it became heartbreakingly clear to me that Australia was two nations, the inhabitants of which seemed unable to understand what the other was talking about, let alone have a chat about it. I wrote about this in my book Off the Rails: the Pauline Hanson Trip (see Chapter 18, We're all poor lean people and we're bangin' on your gate).
Thus, Webdiary's Charter states, in part, that its mission is "to help meet the unmet demand of some Australians for conversations on our present and our future, and to spark original thought and genuine engagement with important issues which effect us all, to link thinking Australians whoever they are and wherever they live and to insist that thinking Australians outside the political and economic establishment have the capacity to contribute to the national debate".
I am a small l liberal by inclination. I hold my views strongly, and one of them is that people with different views to me have the right to be respectfully heard and engaged with on Webdiary. To that end, in 2003 I published Webdiary ethics, which adapts the Media Alliance Code of Ethics for Journalists to meet the online experience and sets out my expectations of Webdiary contributors ethically. Here are my expectations of Webdiary contributors:
As a journalist I have ethical obligations to readers; as a contributor you do not. Still, there are a few guidelines I'd like you to follow.
1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.
2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write. For example, if you are writing about politics, disclose your membership of a political party.
3. Don't plagiarise, that is don't use the ideas of others without telling us where they came from, and don't copy the writings of others and pass them off as your own. There is no need. Put quotes around the words of other people, and tell us who they are and where you got them from. If you've used online sources for your contributions, include the links so others can follow them up.
4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary
5. Robust debate is great, but don't indulge in personal attacks on other contributors.
6. Write in the first person. Remember, we're having a conversation here.
[Added August 2007] It follows from the guidelines above that a question on the identity of other Webdiarists should be taken up with the editors, who will make whatever checks they consider necessary, but such questions will not be allowed within published comments, as it may be necessary to protect the identity of some Webdiarists, and in the classic double-bind of these things, answering only some questions on identity openly exposes the ones we can't answer openly.
From 2000 to August 2004 Webdiary's process for reader participation was through emails to me, which I cut and paste into my Webdiary entries. It was a cumbersome process, to say the least, as more and more emails came in. Sometimes, when interest was very high, like post-Tampa and during the led up to war in Iraq, I couldn't even read them all, and advised Webdiarists accordingly.My policy was to run all emails critical of me or Webdiary except those which were obscene or content free abuse. Apart from that, I picked emails relevant to the topics I was pursuing at the time and did not run emails which I felt breached Webdiary's ethics.
In September 2004 Fairfax handed over all responsibility for Webdiary to me via a new discrete Webdiary self-publishing system as part of my move from employee to contractor (see New Webdiary, frustrated Webdiarists). The new system provided for reader comments, and reader contributions exploded.
The new system challenged my editorial policy on reader contributions, and I struggled to adapt for months. At first, my policy was skewed heavily towards free speech whatever the downside. Some Webdiarists stopped commenting, telling me the space no longer felt safe due to the level of personal abuse I published. Thus, my free speech bent started to impact adversely on my goal for Webdiary, to facilitate civil democratic conversation on important issues for Australia among people of differing views.
Early this year the comments volume became so great that I could no longer both process comments and write for Webdiary, and I employed long time Webdiarist Jack Robertson to be Webdiary's comment manager. Jack did the hard work tightening up our publishing guidelines to make the space safer for all participants and ensure that debate was civil. He even instituted a temporary 'red card' system to force the issue. Jack drafted discussion guidelines, called a 'no abuse trial', and reported to readers on how it was working. Much commentary from readers ensued. See Jack R to pull beers at Club Chaos, Webdiary discussion guidelines and Webdiary 'no abuse' trial - week one.
Here are the guidelines I've carried over to our permanent home:
Posts that contain personal abuse of another Webdiarist will not be published. Serial offenders may be permanently banned.
'Personal abuse' is a difficult and subjective notion, but the following are likely to be so:
a. any criticism of a Webdiarist's actual or imagined physical appearance or characteristic (voice, inherent intellect), or non-physical qualities over which they have no immediate control (writing ability, education level, life or work experience);
b. posts which contain sneering or foul-language criticism of views and opinions, as opposed to witty and pithy critiques;
c. criticisms that depend for their sting even obliquely on a Webdiarist's specific (known or imagined) sexuality, gender, race, religion or nationality;
d. most criticisms that assign a pejorative adjective or noun to a person rather than an adjective or an adverb to that person's actions (including the action of expressing of an opinion);
Another useful guide to apply when deciding whether or not your post is 'personally abusive' is to ask yourself: 'would I be prepared to make this comment face-to-face to my fellow Webdiarist if we were standing at the bar of Club Chaos?'
Since then, I've found that more women have joined the conversation, and that debate has become more civil. The idea is simple – respect other people's points of view, and strive to engage with them on the merits. Passion is cool, and so is respect. If you think you've been unfairly edited, or that we've wrongly refused to publish your comments, please feel free to query our decision by posting a comment. This sometimes happens, and leads to an online discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the guidelines.
Next year I will set up a system whereby Webdiarists who feel hard done by can complain to someone other than me. That person, a Webdiary Ombudsman, will have their own section where he or she would publish non-frivolous complaints, my response, and their views on the matter. That way we can flesh out the guidelines as different issues arise.
Since September 2004 I have banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. I will also ban people who make allegations of unethical conduct by me and refuse to either substantiate or withdraw their claims on request. I am a member of the Media Alliance, and for several years I've published the Alliance Code of Ethics for journalists and invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain to the Alliance, which has a process for determining ethical complaints against its members. Given that this process is in place, I won't put up with cheap allegations of unethical behaviour from me. I take such allegations very seriously, and expect those who make them to do the same. Respect for others includes respect for me. Banned posters will also be able to complain to Webdiary's Ombudsman.
Fiona Reynolds and Richard Tonkin moderate Webdiary comments. We do not delete any comment posted to Webdiary, and the statistics of how many comments we don't publish and why are provided regularly by Webdiary's managing director David Roffey in comments to his management updates). To date we have published 97% of comments posted to the independent Webdiary.
Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following matters:
1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.
Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other side isn't listening. There are plenty of sites around devoted to these subjects where the interminable repetition is welcome: go debate them there. When you're there, remember that the complete lack of any evidence just shows how well the conspiracy is working. Obviously it can be difficult to draw the line, particularly when debating 9/11, and that can lead to some inconsistencies between editors, but that's life.
=====================
Discussion guidelines are always a work in progress, and your input is always welcome.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Let me put that, another way
First, the 'formalities': g'day Jenny Hume.
1. Bananas: first mentioned in this thread by Maurice Ivan (g'day) on July 25, 2006 - 11:11am: "let alone afford to buy half a kilo of bananas."
2. 'Name' and other 'quaint' courtesies: I refer you to my post 'slogans to the left of us - slogans to the right!(1528)' of July 5, 2006 - 1:12pm; a fulsome quote: "'Irrelevant sloganeer!' - as Nicklaus Wirth said, 'You can either call me by name, or call me by value.' If what I write is irrelevant, then so too am I. To 'lie down' and accept the utter travesty foisted upon the world by the US would be to suicide my very spirit."
Jokes usually suffer in the explanation, but this (Wirth) is a) the most extreme insider joke I know of and b) therefore it cries out (shrieks!) to be 'let out'. Spoiler warning: the explanation is below[1]. You don't have to 'go there' if you "don't want"[3].
Long (name) story short: my 'forbidden bananas' was written in answer to Roslyn Ross's (g'day!) query: "And what on earth is a 'false flag theory'? I need to know..." - so my post was an 'answer in context'. As was my 'bananas!' - With all due respect, geddit yet?
Wheels within wheels; it was quite acceptable (always IMHO, of course; and to myself as 'moral' arbiter), to so answer Roslyn (because of the hush! Hush! WD 'Verbot'), but also to pass on a 'slight' slight to you (JH) for the somewhat fresh (as in saucy) 'demanding' "why bananas?"
3. As for "bothering", there's things like 'graduated response' and 'last straws'. In plainer text, we await developments.
How to handle "those country singers?" I'd ask them either to "call me by name, or call me by value" - or whatever else; but always and only preceded by something not too linguistically distant from "G'day!"
To eliminate all possibility of doubt: I say 'start as you mean to go on,' here I'm worried about being swamped by the US but (if possible) worse, the sheople doing the swamping themselves. Only by pointing out to people that their language is 'off' can we ever hope for 'consciousness-raising' to try to save our lingo, along with our very souls (n. 2 moral, emotional, or intellectual nature of a person. [POD])
-=*end*=-
Refs:
[1] Wirth invented an obscure computer language called 'Modula-2'. First, an explanation of one of the most famous 'bugs'[2]. In FORTRAN, one can call a sub-program with an argument: CALL SUB(ARG). ARG specifies a 'variable', within which may be an input value to the sub-program. If the sub-program is designed to return an answer, it may store the answer into the (RAM) location named by ARG. If a (careless!) programmer codes 'CALL SUB(#value)' where #value is some actual number, i.e. 123, and the sub-program returns some answer (as designed), then the actual number, i.e. 123 may have its value changed, since the 'number' 123 has now been invalidly (better: erroneously) used as a 'label' (i.e. not an actual value); any eventual subsequent use of 123 is guaranteed to go wrong - and (almost nobody) will ever find that 'bug'.
Now, amongst other things, Modula-2 was designed to avoid exactly that situation, hence the quote: "You can either call me by name, or call me by value." So far, not very funny. But the "Ah ha!": Wirth is the German word for worth (Ønoun 1 a buyer may require independent evidence of the rug's worth value, financial value, monetary value, price, asking price, selling price, cost; valuation, quotation, estimate, assessment. [Oxford Pop-up]). (Haw?[4])
(Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.") You see (moving on), there's another 'joke' just dying to be built in here: "I'll only buy Canadian bananas if the price is right!" And to get a bit extreme, it's joke within joke; one of the most powerful programming tools is the loop; building self-referential text loops can be amusing (but no, definitely not along the lines of 'small things'. My more usual theme (No laughing!) is B, B & H's 'murder for oil,' - 2nd only to the 60+yr 'murder for land' by the illegitimate US' sprog, Israel.)
[2] Program 'bug'. A possibly apocryphal yarn; an early programmer (a lady - in the US (spit, spit!)) had a particularly intractable programming 'error', that is to say an 'invalid-out' in insider-talk. In desperation, she went to look into the hardware - and discovered some insect. "There's a bug in there!"
[3] Wha'd ya know about 'I don't want!'? Part of 'bringing up baby;' here both language and manners. "We would like you not to use 'I don't want!'" - the suggested usage precedes the objected-to phrase; the objection contains the suggested solution. Then to the injunction; a memory test as well - a) you have made an error, then b) what have we told you about this already? Wheels within wheels within wheels - better stop now. But you may get some idea of how we turned 'bringing up baby' into 'fun for all'(☺).
[4] "To be petandically accurate" [Eds! Haw!]: 'You can either call me by name(Wirth), or call me by value(Wirth)'(?!) Here, the error is the invisible one of concept/context. Many a program has failed, for exactly such trivialities as the wrong case having been used, say. In English, it'd be Worth(name) vs. worth(value). As the ultimate, a 'single-keystroke' error, the whole class of such being referred to as 'finger-trouble'. Haw, indeed.
-=*=-
A little 'bon-bon'; 'without prejudice': chezPhil's copy n' paste tutorial. (The following may look difficult and does need a bit of work, but: IMHO, the price is Wirth it! Haw!)
How to copy material from one place (a reference, say) to another - a new post, say. (Respecting copyright, and don't forget to attribute copied material if not your own!)
Method summary: specify the material (i.e. text) to be copied, copy it into 'the clip-board', then insert it right where you want it.
Specifying the material (i.e. text) can be done with the mouse; position the cursor to the first letter; click the left button and hold it 'clicked' down, move the cursor to the last letter then 'un-click' the left button. Voila! Highlighted. (Practice it.) This is only useful for short bits of text; there is a more general and ultimately better way:
Here's the 'complete' how-to.
1. Highlight the "from" target:
Put the mouse cursor on the phirst letter.
{click} the left mouse button, and hold it down. We can 'shorthand' this 'holding it down' with a notation: '+'. That is, 'Left Click and hold' is written as {L_click+}.
Now, move the mouse so that the highlighting moves to the last letter of the wanted section.
{Unclick} the left button.
Now, you've gotta get the stuff into the clipboard. But, before you do that, what if the text is too long? That is, if it overflows the window it's displayed in, what then? I'll give you a little tip:
{click} the left button on the phirst letter, then let it go.
Scroll down to the last letter, then press-and-hold the shift key (i.e. {Shift+}). It's possible (possibly preferable) to reverse the order here, and do the {Shift+} immediately after the first left {click}, which we can write as {L_click,Shift+} and then do the scrolling whilst holding the Shift down. Your choice; practice makes perfect.
Now {click} the left button again - and "Voila!" - the whole lot's highlighted. (This last operation could be written {Shift+,L_Click}. Ta Ra! The phirst inkling of keyboard short-cuts!)
2. Now, into the clipboard:
You *could* {R_click} and select "Copy", or (worse), you could start by selecting the "Edit" drop-down, or some such etc.
Wrong! - or at least, too cumbersome. Simply:
{Ctrl+Insert}, and "Voila!" again - it's in! (into the clipboard, that is... although you can't see it happening, it's done.)
3. While the iron is hot, pasting:
Phirst, move the mouse to where you wannit (where you want the copied text, that is...)
As before, you *could* go the long way 'round. Nope! Simply:
{Shift+Insert} - and "Voila!" for the last time, and there it is.
You may know, that to delete a section of text, you can highlight it then press the 'Delete' key. Following that, one more thing; to substitute some old text with some new (which you have already copied into the clipboard) i.e. to overwrite some 'old-text' with some newly copy n' paste 'new-text', highlight the 'old' before doing the {Ctrl+Insert}. Don't wanna get too complicated; but what happens if you make a mistake with all this copy n' paste stuff? OK, to reverse that absolutely last thing you did with copy n' paste, say, you could do {Ctrl+z}. That's the keyboard short-cut for 'Undo Typing' in MSWord; it works in lots'a other places too. Experiment, practice.
Hope it helps... but usually, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well - or so 'they' say.
One very last tip. To get a link into the clipboard, {R_click,t}.
-=*=-
PS to Bob Wall: G'day, your torpor is my ennui (malaise, dissatisfaction, unhappiness, uneasiness, unease, melancholy, depression, despondency, dejection, disquiet; German Weltschmerz. [Oxford Pop-up]).
PPS to Fiona: G'day, another song (not for cheering up, sorry; but see 'ennui') Billie Holiday.
non, je ne regrette rien_objection: correction, please
G'day Eds,
My title as submitted was "non, je ne regrette rien" which is a song title; you really can't fiddle with that. Otherwise, thanks for your good works.
Thanks also in advance, regards Phil.
Fiona: Dear Phil, I suspect that this should be a NFP comment, but I'm inclined to publish so that we can all blush. As a fan for the last 45 years of the little sparrow, thank you for introducing yet another thread of culture/kulture/kulcha into Webdiary. So, let us not regret - but maybe, just sometimes, consider La Vie en Rose (and don't get me started on Milord....)
Phil K: Hi, hallo, g'day , good night and goodbye
Phil Kendall: Ask a simple question. Get a rave. Wonder why. Never mind. I know.
Got to hand to you though Phil. You'd do well out here in the sticks. No trouble dodging the traps. Old tractor a bit past its use by, licence run out, no plates on the ute? No worries. Just take all the back tracks through the scrub and you'll be right.
Now I hope you didn't scratch yourself dodging around in the scrub looking for the way out coz I'm all out of iodine.
We farmers. No kulture? (sp Phil. culture.) Mislaid the OED? But culture. Won't bother with that one. Don't want to upset all the elite here by reciting old Henry in their presence. This is the House of William case you hadn't noticed. No. Byron in, Banjo out. Musn't appear too ocker Phil. Leave me to the yellow plains and let them wander midst the golden daffs, if that what turns them on. (Apologies to the Willie W.)
Price of land you ask? Well now. That is a good point. Do you think you guys (sorry blokes, (f) blokees) living midst the chimney stacks could just stay put, stead of coming out here, grabbing the best bits of soil, just so you can play in the dirt, all the time pushing us cockies further and further out into the wastes of the never never (thanks Mr Boake) to try and squeeze a quid out of the sandhills. I mean, six million bucks for a flaming sheep run that would not keep one foot stamping brat in ye olde Kings these days. What are you guys (sorry blokes) on about? Haven't you heard the old sheep's back is a bit crook these days. Oh, never mind. We will take what you got. Let's swap. Just promise me, when the sheep get a bit blowey and you ask some old cocky for advice and he tells you to hit 'em with a bit a' KFM, don't go shoving it down their necks, unless you want them all to lay down and die on you. Spare me from the boys from Pitt St!
Price of spuds? Ask the Irish. They might know. Experts on spuds.
Cubby house. Call in the Dam Busters by all means, but get the early warning system up and running in time to give the ducks downstream at least a 50/50. Six years old and haven't learnt to swim yet. Mohne? Not in the same class Phil. Need a dozen bouncers I would think to shift this one.
Before I go. Aussie speak. Few rules out here you better remember if you come to stay.
1. If you don't know the bloke at all, never seen him before, just say Good day. Gives you time think and ask yourself: Now who the hell is he, and what the hell does he want.? Wise out here, believe me. Whatever you do don't say good day mate. Too friendly. Not a good idea out here.
2. If you do know the bloke, but got a fit of the old alzeihmers and want a bit of time to get a handle on his name, then say Good day mate. How y' going? Then scan the brain box fast while you put the billy on.
3. If you do know the bloke, and got good recall, then say hallo Jack (or whatever) or good day Jack. (If you just say hallo, or good day, and leave his name off, he will know for sure he's not welcome.)
And don't come out here and say Hi. Or call them guys. We reserve that for you blokes in amongst the chimney stacks. When in Rome, speak their lingo. Your problem folks, not mine.
BTW: Before I say good bye, and it is good bye as I don't think we have too much in common Phil, so we won't waste each others time, are you prepared to answer this one? Do you think Johnnie Howard should say Sorry to our indigenies for the sins our fathers, grandfathers, or not? Simple question. No tricks. Yes or No will do. No need to head for the scrub.
I'll pass on all the previous raves thanks. I got your drift.
Non, je ne regret rien
Before and during 'bringing up baby' (there is normally no 'after', it's a never-ending process - also reflexive), we at chezPhil identified 'key phrases' as well as key actions.
As well as being prepared; dyb, dyb, dyb! (Response: We'll dob, dob, dob!) But perhaps the most important key phrase of all: Tell me no lies!
Jenny Hume: "No kulture? (sp Phil. culture.) Mislaid the OED?"
If one were to set out to lecture another ("holier-than-thou"), it would probably pay to a) make sure one has the high moral ground and b) be perfectly correct about any accusation.
Jenny Hume: Maybe Phill Kendall has a point about bringing up baby. Oversight? Hardly, Jenny Hume again: "Phill Kendall: No, I am not racially prejudiced..."
Oscar Wilde: "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
Score: two mis-spellings; probable cause a) insufficient attention to detail, b) typing instead of copy'n pasting and c) in light of both (a) and (b), general discourtesy. From the Comment moderation thread, the 'WD official line': "comments that refer to other Webdiarists by nickname or any other name than that which they use themselves will also not be published."
Nowhere have I ever used "kulture." From my post: "It wasn't very good kulcha, but it was our kulcha). Or perhaps you didn't notice the filthy, creeping culture-corruption either, since you don't realise you've been propagandised?"
Note specifically: "creeping culture-corruption."
Finally here: "Mislaid the OED?" The short answer is "no!" Apart from rigorous use of a spell-checker, I specifically cite [POD] and [Oxford Pop-up] when quoting from these preferred dictionaries, as well as having the associated The New Oxford Thesaurus of English The Oxford Dictionary of quotations and The Oxford World Encyclopedia at hand. The answer to "Mislaid?" is "Hardly; provably (google it!) not".
Such inaccuracies in this context (claiming kulture when I said kulcha, alleging I can't spell 'culture' when the ninth word after one use of 'kulcha' is - ta ra! 'culture'), these inaccuracies amount to false statements; the question is then: intentionally or not? If intentional then outright lies, of not then unconscionable negligence.
Which is it?
-=*=-
Before I wrap this up, here's another of those 'key phrases': "It's always someone else's fault!" Keeping that in mind, try this:
[Jenny Hume]
Changing the subject slightly, Australia is the fabled "land of the local maximum." Examples abound; take dirt-farmers. Smartest in the world! Best practice! They make ingenious deals with other farmers, to farm the same dirt twice. Once here, then once again in NZ. (The Swiss do a similar 'farm it twice' trick, however instead of creating dustbowls, they just walk around to the other side of the mountain.)
Oh, yeah. Be it in a Roller, Porsche or WW2-look-alike Toyota, Q: just whad'y think y'get if y'cross a paddock... covered in sloppy-sticky sheep s**t? A: A coating of 'stuff' under the car, which can set like concrete. The mechanic (wiping his hands on a very stained bit'a cloth) asked, "Just what was that stuff under your car?" To be perfectly honest, he went a bit green when I told him. Why that, I thought? Then I spied his lunch-box debris. No, not KFM, but KFC.
A penultimate: other than baby seal fur coats (slightly ill-suited to out the back'a Bourke, one might'a thunk - unless one sets the air-con below 19°c - about 66° Farmerheit - err, Fahrenheit), can you name one significant product from Canada which you didn't buy, although it was the cheapest? Don't bother with an answer; but talking of cheapest, did you hear about the uncomfortable astronaut? He said what gave him misgivings was sitting on top of a 111m, 3,038,500 kg pile of mostly high-explosives, knowing that each of the squillions of individual bits were all provided by the 'lowest bidder'.
Last 'kick': there's an expression: "can't lie straight in bed." Recall that our wide-brown is the fabled "land of the local maximum;" combine any amount of "world's superlative" and utter, undisguised and super-cynical hypocrisy. Add in another of chezPhil's key phrases: 'sorry doesn't help much.' Voila! (exclamation there it is; there you are: ‘Voila!’ she said, producing a pair of strappy white sandals. ORIGIN French voilà. [Oxford Pop-up]) Fearing the slightest subtlety might go over some heads like an Ivan Lendl serve: any talk of Howard saying 'sorry' is simply a distraction. (Any qualifier, i.e. stupidity-level, to be assigned to the distraction may be done by each individual reader.)
-=*=-
What is clear, is a general (and now confirmedly two-way) antipathy, which is too bad because I did think there was 'something valuable in there' to be fished out while (however unsuccessfully, as it turns out) suppressing my own allergic responses. I openly admit to (light-hearted as opposed to malicious) provocation; too bad the poor result. I leave you, Ms Hume, with something to ponder [CBS 60mins]: "but the price--we think the price is worth it."
This is not "whatreallyhappened.com"
Roslyn Ross, I believe a ‘false flag” theory is your staple government “conspiracy theory” these days. Basically it means a government creates an act of war or terrorism, then makes it look like someone else did it. The flag bit seems to have maritime origins, for example a French ship might have attacked a British port under a Spanish ‘flag’.
9/11 has numerous “false flag” theories of its own. I suspect the editorial decision behind banning the posting of conspiracy theories aims to prevent debate deteriorating into a state of loony paranoia. I think the editors prefer that Webdiary be a place for serious and rational debate. There are plenty of sites around to entertain an individuals own fantasies about government conspiracy. 9/11 has become a modern version of the faked moon landing, aliens in Roswell etc Webdiary cannot pretend to be a serious site if degenerates into debate on numerous wild conspiracy theories. I strongly agree with the present editorial policy.