[Archivist's note: This further details round two (Nov. 2021), continuing from here.]
Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org): > Maybe part of the problem is that you tend to be verbose, with > detailed explanations. ND seems to want short comments so people can > just nod and go onto the adverts. Or you are sometimes > controversial. Sure. Got it in one. I elaborated to a friend, on that: From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> To: [my friend] Subject: Re: So, a thing happened, again Quoting [my friend]: > This is ridiculous! I’m going to reach out [Name], I don't want to mislead you. I found amusing that by probable _coincidence_ my second (current) banning immediately followed my having made a very mild statement critical of white supremacists, but that doesn't seem to have been the trigger, this second time around. (It definitely was the first time, in February.) This time, the angry ND Lead had in mind a number of lengthy, calm, referenced, strictly factual comments I posted to a diferent thread about the local COVID-19 booster rollout, where I examined antivax talking points, talking about the real, full story. In one case, I amiably came to the defence of one talking point by an antivaxer friend (yes, a friend), L.D. She'd trotted out several claims she said indicated infringement of antivaxer freedoms, and one of them was that a father had been denied visitation rights to his child because he'd refused vaccination. Someone else immediately reproved L.D. for posting "fake news". I said, hold on, you're right that it'd have been better if L.D. had included a case citation, but I've found the one she probably means, and pointed to this article by law professor Eugene Volokh: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/09/noncustodial-parent-required-to-get-covid-vaccine-or-covid-test-before-exercising-visitation/ And I summarised: 1. This is in New York, in an ongoing divorce trial. 2. The judge was issuing a TRO (temporary restraining order), and my understanding is that couples during the pendency of a divorce trial are very under the judge's thumb, much more than after. 3. The judge reacted to the non-custodial father trying to bullbleep him, admitting to having consulted zero medical knowledge or authorities but claiming his RCC religion precluded him getting vaccinated. The judge pointed out this is nonsense, as Pope Francis urges Catholics to get the vaccine, and has taken it himself. 4. Also, the father had blanket-refused the alternative of regular COVID testing. Bottom line, I said: Don't try to bullbleep a judge in his own courtroom, or you may learn the hard way, as one father just did, that such a ploy never works well. In another exchange in the thread, I very politely questioned an antivaxer's narrative, who claimed his doctor had advised him to not get the vaccine because it would erase the immunity he'd gotten from COVID infection, and would put him at risk for a heart attack. I asked if possibly some communication had gotten garbled, as the claimed advice didn't make sense and was misinformed. I went on at some length, to explain how disease-conferred immunity works, and in comparison how vaccine-conferred immunity works, to show how one doesn't erase the other, but that the latter type is targeted rather than hit or miss. (At the same time, other _actual_ medical people were explaining to the guy at lesser length why the supposed advice was poorly informed.) In another subthread, I dissected the antivax talking point of claiming vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued. I said that, as with many talking points, that's based on some truth and some untruth. I described how in March 2020 the prior Administration's HHS Secretary, Alex Azar, applied the Federal PREP Act to give the pharmas developing the three COVID vaccines a partial shield from _some_ tort liability to 2024, as part of the Operation Warp Speed measures to make development as fast as FDA and CDC testing requirements would permit and reduce the resulting vaccine prices to the Federal government. But, I pointed out, the PREP Act shield permits vaccinated patients to sue if there were substantive misconduct by the companies, _and_ patient claims of harm were also heard and, if validated, paid out from an insurance pool. I pointed out that insurance-pool liability arrangement is relatively rare but not overly so, e.g., when a defective B-707 killed my father, Pan Am Captain Arthur Moen, in 1968, on account of negligence by Pan Am and Boeing, my family was barred from suing Pan Am by the Workman's Compensation Act, but we received an insurance-pool Workman's Compensation payout, instead. So, I said, it's partially correct to claim that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for harm, and partially incorrect. There is a _partial_ legal shield until March 2024; presumably any claims can still be sued then. And the partial shield covers only the three COVID vaccines, not vaccines generally. In the angry ND Lead's mind, these factual, careful, well-referenced explanations were "opinions" and also were way too long; thus her attempt to order me to not post "opinions" in the future. It's the usual dog-whistling. "Opinions" doesn't mean opinions; it means annoyingly authoritative, fact-based explanations that the antivax crowd didn't want to hear. "Diatribes" does not mean diatribes. It means verifiable dissections politely stated without spin. "Replies that discriminate against, attack, insult, shame, bully, or belittle others" does not mean what those words say. It means undermining ritual talking points with details and verifiable facts told diplomatically. The very fact that my explanations _are_ cordial and respectful, with zero interpersonal strife, and are comprehensive and verifiable, is what makes them a perceived threat to some. Anyway, if people ask why I vanished, please just pass along my "Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>" and "650-283-7902 cellular" contact information. Thank you!