The idea that this filter represents censorship is a stretch...a long one. So please don't accuse me of doing that with this filter. Unless you're trying to force your message down someone's throat - why should you care if they read it or not. And how is not clicking on a message any different than not seeing it in the first place? If the filter was put in place for everyone - then you could evoke the censorship argument. But it's a choice to filter that everyone can or can not make.

Also I need to address a few things from Kent's post which made a number of unfair and untrue accusations -

First of all, I have never emailed Kent and threatened to remove all of his posts. My email to him said that I had a problem with his using the board as an experiment in provocation and that if I thought one of his posts was simply meant to provoke someone for his experiment (for his book) - then I would delete it. Kent even put into quotes "remove all my messages from the board" like those words came from me. I didn't email those words to him and that is a lie.

Secondly, Kent said that I've been posting "all those "SHOW ME THE PROOF!" type messages". I posted in response to 2 of Kent's posts with a "show me the proof" type attitude. The first dealt with Kent's assertion that Ebay removed a magazine for reasons other than the rules clearly stated on their site. The second dealt with Kent's claim that Hillary, herself, registered her name as a candidate for President. Two times did I post a "show me the proof" type message and neither time did Kent satisfy.

I am in a unique position to be both a participant in and a maintainer of this message board. I try my best to present an atmosphere where people can interact in a civil manner. The addition of the filter was never meant to stifle anyone's free speech.

Dan