Posted by: Teacherman () on Sun Mar 2 06:39:42 2003

"Past experience has shown us that merely removing a few posts usually does not solve anything."
>
> I respectfully (I hope) disagree. And the reason I disagree is as simple as once something is posted, you can't take it back. As in the old court room trick of the lawyer who wants to discredit a witness in the eyes of the jury by asking he question "do you still beat your wife?". And then says no further questions. Of course the witness does not beat his wife and never did. And hopefully the lawyer for the other side will be given the opportunity to object and perform his own cross examination of the witness. And that the question is 'stricken' from the record. But the hope and reason for asking the question is to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of the jury as to the witness’s creditability .
>
> And that's what happens when threads are deleted. The seeds of doubt are planted by the attackers who are usually very vocal and aggressive. And many times the person being attacked, who try’s to maintain a rational state of response, never has the opportunity to adequately respond to the accusations. Or in this situation, present a good argument in response to verbiage that Zig and his crew attacked Teacherman with.
>
> And by deleting the thread, Batspeed.com does two things. It potentially allows only one side of the issue to be presented, usually the aggressor’s. Because aggressor’s are the reason for the deletion and therefore their posts are the last to be read/seen. By deleting entire threads, you eliminate the opportunity for others to be heard in full thus preventing one or both parties to have their “day in court”. In other words by deleting all posts and preventing further “reasonable” discussions, batspeed.com allows the question of "do you still beat your wife" to go unchallenged without allowing the jury to hear the answer to the question. It denies the opportunity for the "accused" to defend themselves and for others to help show the real motives behind the question.
>
> No eliminating all posts is to me, more unfair to those being attacked as they are the ones who usually never get a chance to defend themselves.
>
> And secondly, eliminating all posts on a topic/issue (versus doing a good job of moderating the posts) may be an easy way out for batspeed.com to deal with difficult questions and issues that usually (because the difficult questions are the ones in most need of answers) have the potential, if handled in a reasonably intelligent manner, to increase ones understanding of the swing. And in this specific instance the science or non science of what constitutes a good vs bad swing and proof there of.
>
> Eliminating posts as in eliminating debate and discussion is potentially one of the main reasons why these same issues and arguments (flare ups) continue to occur and usually degenerate into personal attacks . Deletion of threads just promotes the same arguments over and over again. That by eliminating posts instead of allowing them to play themselves out (in a reasonable manner), the same foolishness is allowed to go unchallenged over and over again. Because those who engage in this foolishness are always allowed to play "hit and run". Without ever having to defend their positions because the deletion of their posts does it for them.
>
> That in the deletion of all posts the responsible arguments are never allowed to be presented, debated or stand in response to the attacks , and a future deterrent (as in been there done that) to future foolishness because ALL posts are eliminated in the "name" (excuse of) keeping everything "peaceful". As in ignorance is bliss, until the next time the same questions/issues are raised again.
>
> So it is not and I quote
>
> “merely removing a few posts usually does not solve anything."
>
> But rather the possibility that the removing of ALL posts solves nothing.
>
> And of course there is always the possibility that if these issues, the difficult ones such as what scientifically constitutes a good swing were allowed to unfold, that very soon there would be nothing left to post about. And we wouldn’t want that now, would we??
>
> Too bad, because I did want to present my "case" in rebuttal to what I considered Zig and his "team's" foolishness.
>
> Oh well maybe I will get the chance next time if I am fast enough to compose what I consider a responsible reply to what I consider Zig's foolishness and post it before the "right" (as in power) of censorship is imposed.

I agree 1000%. What is ever learned by people sitting around agreeing? Most learning comes out of disagreement. I saw no name calling or profanity. Just adults disagreeing. And, especially on the subject of hitting, it takes a good heated discussion to weed out fact from fiction. The censorship "button" should never have been hit.
>