Is sinking a thread the right choice?

Only caveat: Staying on topic. 

mtierney said:

Only caveat: Staying on topic. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/woman-adopted-abandoned-baby-with-3-percent-of-brain-giving-her-a-home-while-she-lived_3634359.html

 the article is behind a pay wall and I can't access it. So I'll have to guess what it's about. Is the baby expected to grow up to be a MAGA?

no

mtierney said:

no, the baby died

Happy?

 no. But how is anyone supposed to know what you've posted if all we get is a headline?  And how is the story good news if the baby died? 

Epoch Times has a paywall???

ROTFLMAO!

If I wanted to buy a bag of BS, I would go to the gardening center.

Senior man fulfills life long goal, lands dream job

I was able to look up the name of the woman in the story.  Her story is also on a different website:

https://www.lovewhatmatters.com/she-was-left-with-nothing-not-even-a-name-theres-a-10-day-old-baby-girl-he-told-us-she-has-a-disease-adoption-foster-care-family/

It is a story of kindness.  

The Epoch Times doesn't have a paywall, per se, but you need to give them an email address.  Which I would not do under any circumstances.

this thread has started off just swimmingly

I confess to visiting this site from time to time for positive news stories:

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

drummerboy said:

this thread has started off just swimmingly

 my bad. I shouldn't have reacted to an Epoch Times citation. 

ml1 said:

 my bad. I shouldn't have reacted to an Epoch Times citation. 

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

 my bad. I shouldn't have reacted to an Epoch Times citation. 

 Certainly not the smartest move to comment on a link which you could not open and read. Classic example prejudging content, but it is your loss. 

Except Epoch Times is largely a right wing fever dream, so ml1 was making a smart observation.

Sure, it might have the occasional legit story, but no one who has any sense is going to give them their email address to read a story.

Try different sources.

mtierney said:

 Certainly not the smartest move to comment on a link which you could not open and read. Classic example prejudging content, but it is your loss. 

 I didn't actually pre judge it at all. I made a joke. Which probably went over your head.

If you want people to pay attention it's probably a good idea to stick to legit news sources and avoid the likes of the Epoch Times. 

My first recommendation would be not to cite a news source with which one is unfamiliar. My second would be not to make fun of a baby born with disabilities sure to prove fatal. But that’s me. 

The Epoch Times is a bowl of steaming fascist crap.  Odds are anything reported in it is a bold faced lie. Its like the National Enquirer of the 1980s but written by Nazi simps and substantially less funny.

Please don’t post epoch times articles- the thread is on sink mode. 
it’s amazing that some people actually pay for this.

censorship on MOL? 

allow me.

From the other link here for this story deemed too threatening..

The professional victim strikes again!  Whining about censorship as she demands that others be censored. 

Cry me a river.

Wow, no takers! 

I have been under the impression — since 2001 — that the blog category was one in  which posters could express  thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc, in writing — a catch all of the human condition.

Apparently, I was mistaken. 

Censorship is a tricky road to take — in apolitical discussions, bound to create confusion. 

When personal attacks, insults and threats are consistently condoned in politics categories, what does that reveal about this overlook of MOL stalkers, who spew bile here?

This began with my selecting an uplifting, positive story of the very short time on earth for a baby born with only 3% of her brain. She was adopted and loved. As someone who adopted three infants, I was filled with awe by the courage of the young couple and what they have created.

Edited to add:

This thread is being sunk — Read it while you can! 

mtierney said:

Wow, no takers! 

I have been under the impression — since 2001 — that the blog category was one in  which posters could express  thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc, in writing — a catch all of the human condition.

Apparently, I was mistaken. 

Censorship is a tricky road to take — in apolitical discussions, bound to create confusion. 

When personal attacks, insults and threats are consistently condoned in politics categories, what does that reveal about this overlook of MOL stalkers, who spew bile here?

This began with my selecting an uplifting, positive story of the very short time on earth for a baby born with only 3% of her brain. She was adopted and loved. As someone who adopted three infants, I was filled with awe by the courage of the young couple and what they have created.

Edited to add:

This thread is being sunk — Read it while you can! 

 You sad pathetic professional victim.  You are not being censored.  You can still post whatever you want here.  Jaimie is simply choosing not to promote your posts by moving your thread to the top of the page when you do so.  

Presumably, this thread will continue to exist and be available to post on as long as MOL is operational.  All Jaimie has done is guarantee that it will continue to sink into oblivion, just like Trump's approval rating.

His name is Jamie. Not hard to spell.

mtierney said:

His name is Jamie. Not hard to spell.

 Poor spelling is one of the down sides of dyslexia.  That said, the stakes are pretty low for me.  I am not the one begging the moderator to let me use his platform to spread anti American seditionist propaganda.

In response to the question you posed in the thread title "When is sinking a thread the best direction" I think the obvious answer is "whenever it starts with a reference to the Epoch Times".

Let me know if there is anything else you need clarified.

Silly me, here I thought all Americans supported free speech and freedom of the press. 

The caveat, apparently,  is only acceptable speech and press, in regurgitated versions, are fit to read or here. To protect the public?

So, cancelling ET links is the a step toward silencing or stifling opposing thought. Is that even Democratic?

You are free to say whatever you want in public.  The moderator is not required to provide you with a platform from which to speak on his privately owned web page.

That should not be too hard for even you to understand but I am sure that you will continue to see yourself as the victim of some nefarious conspiracy.  Its is little wonder that you succumbed to the charms of the sagging orange erection.

mtierney said:

Silly me, here I thought all Americans supported free speech and freedom of the press. 

The caveat, apparently,  is only acceptable speech and press, in regurgitated versions, are fit to read or here. To protect the public?

So, cancelling ET links is the a step toward silencing or stifling opposing thought. Is that even Democratic?

You brought this same topic up, on another thread, and I responded to you.

What is being said in the Rose Garden? What's happening in Washington? (worldwebs.com)

You ignored it, and instead posted the same lie.  Here's the explanation again:

The picture below shows what is on the screen when you click on the link from "Epoch Times" for the "heartwarming account". You have to give them information about you, in order to read the story.

Epoch Times trolls for email addresses by republishing "heartwarming stories" it finds from other sources. Epoch Times is not in the "heartwarming story" business, though, it's in the political propaganda business. Getting more contact information about more people serves its goal of spreading its political propaganda. Anyone who posts a link telling people to entice people to give that information, is helping Epoch Times collect something it considers valuable.

Mr. J. Ross doesn't want unsuspecting readers at his business to be victimized by an email-collecting operation like this. It wasn't about the "heartwarming story" at all.

.

.