Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent th

Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". When pointed out that this is isn't true you fall back on "I googled and found some mention of some people doing that", which isn't the same thing. At all. Not even close. If two groups of people both disagree with another group of people, that doesn't mean the first two groups can be arbitrarily treated as the same or blamed for the actions of the other. The extraordinary level of slippage your replies on this thread involve makes it very hard for people to debate with you, are you aware of that? You keep asserting that various people or groups have said things that they never said, or that they didn't say things when they did, based apparently on ad-hoc or arbitrary connections in your own mind. It's not surprising that you're feeling confused! The problem you're displaying here crops up frequently in discussions about censorship. It's what Matt Taibbi calls "the transitive property of whatever". I was arguing a week ago with someone else on this forum who was claiming that Facebook was somehow implicated in the Rohingya Genocide. It's a form of overly-transitive reasoning in which belief in the power of words strengthens to the point at which everything appears connected to everything else. To invert the argument to a form you may recognize from the 'other side' it's like arguing that because a few Muslims have blown themselves up in response to religious teachings, therefore all mosques should be shut down. So if you have a specific and precise problem with the website in question, let's hear it. And if you want to reply with an assertion that X said Y, please quote their exact words where they say that.