Moderator 2 needs Robs moderation.

[Punatang]

It is clear that censorship divides us.

Are censorship and moderation viewed as apples and oranges? Or just fruit?

[HiloJulie]

It is clear that censorship divides us.

In principle, I agree.

Having said that, I think that censoring some right-wing conspiracy babble but continually allowing a male chauvinist pig to post numerous and continuous sexually degrading comments about and to a woman with immunity is completely wrong.

[Wao nahele wahine]

It is clear that censorship divides us.

In principle, I agree.

Having said that, I think that censoring some right-wing conspiracy babble but continually allowing a male chauvinist pig to post numerous and continuous sexually degrading comments about and to a woman with immunity is completely wrong.

Just can't stop, can you?
Would be appreciated if you could refrain from repeatedly commenting on your interpretation of the contents of a deleted thread.

https://youtu.be/T1XgFsitnQw?si=xjv6ylieXDW_qATW

[HiloJulie]

Just can't stop, can you?
Would be appreciated if you could refrain from repeatedly commenting on your interpretation of the contents of a deleted thread.

"If it makes you feel better to blame things on Kane, feel free. However, the ongoing nastiness is not from him. I won't respond to anymore taunts and insults from HJ about this topic moving forward."

That didn't last long.

Would be appreciated if you would refrain from repeatedly defending a male chauvinist pig!

[Wao nahele wahine]

Just can't stop, can you?
Would be appreciated if you could refrain from repeatedly commenting on your interpretation of the contents of a deleted thread.

"If it makes you feel better to blame things on Kane, feel free. However, the ongoing nastiness is not from him. I won't respond to anymore taunts and insults from HJ about this topic moving forward."

That didn't last long.

Would be appreciated if you would refrain from repeatedly defending a male chauvinist pig!

Kane isn't a male chauvinist pig. I haven't defended MyManao. I'm sorry you have trouble understanding that.

[HiloJulie]

Kane isn't a male chauvinist pig.

I never said he was. I was speaking about your other buddy whom you continually defend.

ETA: As I said in my reply to Punatang, I'd rather see Kane's entire unedited post fully reinstated and not censored over that of it being censored, as it was, while at the same time allowing a male chauvinist pig to continually post sexually degrading comments about and to a woman with immunity.

I am sorry you had trouble understanding that.

[Wao nahele wahine]

Kane isn't a male chauvinist pig.

I never said he was. I was speaking about your other buddy whom you continually defend.

I haven't defended MyManao.  I have stated that I don't agree with the name calling, which is something you both do. You called it misogyny, which I don't agree with.

Hilo Julie:
ETA: As I said in my reply to Punatang, I'd rather see Kane's entire unedited post fully reinstated and not censored over that of it being censored, as it was, while at the same time allowing a male chauvinist pig to continually post sexually degrading comments about and to a woman with immunity.

Where was that post?  All I have seen recently is you calling it this:

Having said that, I think that censoring some right-wing conspiracy babble but continually

allowing a male chauvinist pig to post numerous and continuous sexually degrading comments about and to a woman with immunity is completely wrong.

[HiloJulie]

I deleted my post out of respect of M2's recent action.

[Patricia]

Aloha all. Hope you had a lovely, few days of lots of food and family. 
Looks like I missed the holiday fireworks. I wonder, what did Kane say that was so bad? Was it bad? I never read it, so now cannot make a fair judgment. And I am interested because I too have experienced a couple (very few) and very brief run-ins with Moderaror 2. Run-ins which were made publicly and were completely unnecessary. 
While I understand that many on this forum use a nom de plume most, who have been members for years, know who one another is. When I signed onto this forum I used my actual name. I did this for two reasons; first because I am new to this forum and do not have the shared history that some of you all do; second because I received so much hate and flack about "hiding behind" a pen name on other forums, from those who do not agree with what I have to say about HPPOA (this, even though I was very open and also shared my true identity). All that said, I have an issue with a moderator who will not use their true name. 
I will stand behind anything I state and will back it up. Using my true name has not made my doing so any less difficult than using my pen name. And for those who wanted to make an issue out of me using my pen name and discredit/minimize the truth of what I stated because I was using a pen name, well many of them have suddenly gone quiet. 
I used my nom de plume because I did not want to drag family into HPPOA politics on FB. Why is Moderator 2 using their's? Does Moderator 2 feel less comfortable using their true name? Why? If Moderator 2 is comfortable with their decisions and reasons for, if Moderator 2 is willing to stand behind anything they state and back it up there should not be any need for Moderator 2 to "hide" behind a pen name.

[Moderator 2]

I too have experienced a couple (very few) and very brief run-ins with Moderaror 2. Run-ins which were made publicly and were completely unnecessary. 

1) I deleted the name of a person in a post.  The name was deleted by request of that person.
2) I deleted your name, mailing address (phone?) on a document you attached.  If you object to the entire document being deleted you may redact your personal information and resubmit.
3) You suggested I use my real name.  I didn’t reply.

Anything else?