Backtothepoint…censor

Backtothepoint – Soft on censorship. , suicide bombing and paedophilia

Update 1

I was looking for some evidence that might pinpoint when Ally Fogg moved into the “menz” camp and came across this further evidence of Backtothepoint’s attempts to enroll the CiF moderators in his censorship activities.

JimPress had posted about the “cliques” that existed on CiF and WDYWTTA:

If the Guardian really wants an answer to the question ‘What do you want to talk about?’ then it needs to find a different format to this ugly squabbling cliquey thread, or at least have a zero tolerance policy towards those that indulge in the routine mobbing of anybody who dares not to join the club. I admire the persistence (if not, generally, the views) of Bracken and Brooklyn in going against the grain, but I’ve no idea what they feel they gain from their presence.

I replied with an example of Backtothepoint’s attempts at censorship:

Who is the CiF regular poster who wrote today, in the true spirit of free speech and a free press:

I asked the mods to have a word with bitey and tell him to stop the personal abuse with me. It seems to have worked without him getting banned, which is all to the good (for me at least, since I can now ignore him).

What a pathetic statement from someone who spends a good part of his life exercising his right to free speech in a free press, by posting both here and at what is colloquially known as the other place. I wonder where this person was when the vast majority of posters on Natalie Hanman’s first piece as the new CiF editor, were demanding an end to the current moderation policy. Presumably he was busy composing his “word with the mods”.

There is a time and a place for personal abuse and in my book this aspiring censor qualifies for neither, so I won’t waste my time.

And if anyone else wants to know why I’m posting this here, it’s because the censors in the country where I’m currently living won’t allow me to access the place where this piece of pathetic self pity was posted. But my censors have no problem with The Guardian – except when it’s being ultra critical of the current Chinese government, when individual articles do get blocked.

And while I’ll fully accept that being critical of the attempted use of the moderators to pursue a personal case of limiting freedom of speech is probably off topic for this thread, although it might make a good article ATL, it seems no more so than for instance the discussion about how to make gravy. (This was a reference to a discussion instigated by kizbot on how to make gravy).

Posted on WDYWTTA 7 October 2010 but deleted, doubtless after a complaint by BTTP, but  PeterBracken’s response remains, as does his rather more abrupt reply on The Untrusted here:

Jim Press’s post (on the earlier thread) is a model of restrained yet pertinent criticism.

WADDYA has morphed from a suggestion box to a cyber cafe with Jets and Sharks strutting their stuff. Most of the time it’s harmless banter, but on occasion the knives are drawn and it gets ugly.

If there is an excuse for the behaviour it rests in the nature of the medium. Too many believe, wrongly, that because web forums are a democratic medium, they must also contribute to pluralism. They don’t. They crystallise prejudice and pre-specified outlooks and give vent to what Madison called the ‘mischief of faction.’

Ironically, the political blogshere is working to narrow the range of competing perspectives, not broaden it. Anyone can join in, and no expertise is required to participate. But not everyone’s views are with listening to, though a fallacy persists to the contrary.

As Howard Jacobson said,

Democracies insist that very dog must have his say, but our society is not dying of suppressed opinion, but an overproduction of it.

Mine included.

———————————————————————

BTTP is a prolific CiF poster who time and again resorts to censorship in a futile attempt to boost his popularity on CiF and The Untrusted sites.

backtothepoint posting on 6 June 2011:

Actually, I do report Bracken’s posts for abuse when he smears me. There’s not a lot else I can do since it’s pointless descending to his level, but the sort of   things he says about me could get me put on a file.

BTTP reports posters to the moderators for what he considers to be smears, in the full knowledge that it will result in them being banned, rather than engaging in argument and debate. But then his politics favour silencing those who challenge his presumption of superiority.

There isn’t a poster on CiF or elsewhere, who couldn’t detect a smear if they tried and most treat this as part of the cut and thrust of debate.

But not cry baby BTTP.

So let’s look at what it is BTTP is objecting to.

First there are posters criticising his overt support for suicide bombing and
bombers, views I’m surprised haven’t resulted in him being up before the beak.
What, given these views of his could possibly be considered a smear?

Here he is responding to Waltz on the thread following an article Mothers of martyrdom.

Backtothepoint’s comment 14 June 2009 6:39PM

@Waltz

My point was actually that anyone saying that suicide bombing is evil per se, or who, like Moishe in the first post, makes blanket statements about suicide
bombers, but who would actually approve of suicide bombings in certain cases, is being hypocritical.

Very different to what you’re claiming.

Well, people are free to go back up the thread and see that your accusations are totally false, so I think we can stop there.

By the way, I would totally condemn anyone who blows up a school bus. They’re just as bad as Israeli pilots blowing up schools.

Not you will see, pilots blowing up a school filled with students – because that’s never happened, for had it, BTTP would have been the very first to tell us about it. No in BTTP’s warped world view a suicide bomber who walks into a university cafeteria with the full intention of killing as many innocent people as possible, is the same as an airforce pilot bombing a school building containing not students but the armed forces of the enemy.

Perhaps BeautifulBurnout could advise us whether publicising such homage to suicide bombing would be considered contrary to the Prevention of Terrorism legislation?

Now here is Backtothepoint’s tribute to those who died in the Twin Towers:

When, like the USA, you encourage, fund and arm terrorism, you really shouldn’t whine when it turns round and bites you in the arse.

BTTP likes to portray himself as the world’s premier supporter of Palestinians and the enemy of Israel and his views on suicide bombers have convinced me and many others that he is in fact Israel’s best friend. How they must love him in Tel Aviv, for every time he opens his mouth, the struggle of Palestinians for justice, takes another step back. Anyone remember his support for Iran’s nuclear weapons programme?  How that must have warmed the hearts of his despised Zionists.

And when you add the fact that alone among those who’ve been banned from CiF,  BTTP is the only one who gets away with bragging about coming back under a different name. How else can you achieve that unless you’re the moderators’ nark?

With his history of running to the moderators  this quote of his must stick in his craw:

What do you want to talk about?
backtothepoint’s comment 16 March 2010 1:42PM

Or alternatively, call it “Comment is Free Unless We Abritrarily Decide Otherwise”. A little unwieldy, but more factual, you’ll admit.

Maybe it should be updated now in the light of your more recent postings BTTP to read:

“Comment is Free Unless We Abritrarily Decide Otherwise or BTTP has come
whining to us telling his tales”.

And here he is at probably his most despicable – a self-declared atheist defending the most appalling practices of a backward religion. And why, other than to avoid having to be in any way critical of those Palestinians who subscribe to Islamic creeds.

Let’s keep comment as free as possible
backtothepoint’s comment 9 April 2010 1:42PM replying to thinkOfTheChildren, who wrote about the prophet:

Yes, it seems you’re right. Betrothed at six and marriage consummated at nine.

To which BTTP responded:

But why the wait, if Mohammed was indeed a paedophile?

So while we may be appalled at the idea of a man in his fifties having sex with a girl of nine, it seems to have been perfectly acceptable according to the local customs of the time.

And quite acceptable it would appear to BTTP, even in 2010.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: