> There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion.
... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?
... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?
> anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion
But we don't actually know if that's why it was deleted. It's a presumption on whatshisface's part.
I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice.
> It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption.
The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did.
> The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
In reality the office has 0 infections.
How would you know this? Many infected people are asymptomatic for over a week, and the US generally isn't testing asymptomatic people unless they were in close contact with a known infected person.
(I'm saying this just as reminder that people would do well to practice social distancing even if there is no evidence that specific persons are infected. I'm not trying to justify whoever it was who allegedly posted baseless claims to the forum.)