If I've got something wrong about you, you are here to correct the record. At least, for now.
You have distributed several lies about me in
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-267#post-3661574
Moderator note: Schmelzer has been warned for knowingly telling lies. The protesters who invaded the US Capitol at Trump's urging are well documented. Some have even publically "outed" themselves and their motivations.
It is untenable to claim that these people are "really" antifa or Democrat stooges, without a shred of actual evidence. To do so is to knowingly tell lies.
This suggests that I would have claimed somewhere that
all those in the Capitol were antifa provocateurs or so. Of course, this is not so, and, of course, I have never even suggested such nonsense.
Provocateurs are always a small minority. They are always hidden, pretend to be supporters of the other side which they really want to harm. Their aim is to motivate the supporters of the other side to do inadequate things, like in this case to storm the Capitol, which would predictably harm the interests of the other side. So, if provocateurs succeed, the situation would look like they wanted to have it - the Trump supporters storm the Capitol and destroy in this way the minor remaining chances of Trump, and they would remain undetected.
Given that I have explained this to you in my answer, you have had all the information you need to recognize that the theory that there have been Antifa provocateurs is not even in contradiction with the facts that some, even most, of those inside the Capitol were Trump supporters. Moreover, I have not even claimed that this is a fact - all I have done is to discuss the
theory that this was the result of Dem provocateurs acting, and to find this theory more plausible than other theories. Discussing theories of what happened is something very different from making claims about facts.
Recognizing that supporters of some ideologies may appear unable to see even elementary errors in their logic if this would lead to a conflict with their ideological presuppositions, I give you the favor of doubt that you really may have been unable to understand that you have told something completely wrong about me. So, may be this was not an intentional lie from your side. But it was factually clearly and obviously wrong.
Moreover, Schmelzer has also received a warning for threatening another member of sciforums (myself, as it happens), in reply to a previously warning about telling knowing lies about the same thing. He is now banned for 1 day as a result of these warnings.
This is the second lie. I have never threatened you.
What I have done was to inform you that I may, under some circumstances, make the conversation with you public. This is something I feel morally obliged to inform people about in any private conversation if I plan, under some circumstances, to publish that conversation even without asking them for permission. So, I have informed you about the circumstances when I would publish that conversation (namely, if I will be banned here based on similar lies about me, without a possibility to defend myself here against those lies used to justify the ban).
Informing you that my response, as well as all future conversations with you, may be published under some circumstances is in no way a threat. It is, instead, morally and possibly even legally obligatory information, which I'm obliged to give you if I want to have the right to publish my answer and the subsequent conversations without asking for your permission to publish. This is the complete analog of the obligation of the police to tell the people "all what you say can be used against you" before an interrogation. Can you say that you have been threatened by the police if they have told you this before an interrogation? I think not.
A threat is only a threat if it threatens some behavior which is either illegal or at least morally wrong. Else, it is not a threat, but neutral and adequate information about my possible reaction to a repetition of your behavior.
Extrapolating your behavior in the past (namely, your nonsensical interpretation of my information as a "threat", and your repeating the lie of "knowingly telling lies" despite my explanations why this is not a lie) , I'm aware of the danger that you will misinterpret the explanations above or what follows as another "threat" and ban me forever. If this happens, you will probably delete this post too, so that nobody will be able to see my argumentation.
That's why I have thought about the question if it is worth to publish this. Essentially I have found that as a "science forum" this forum has lost its value years ago. The only thing which has something to do with science here is some copy-pasting from pop science articles by paddoboy. I could read them anyway, to reply to them makes no sense, so no loss. I have used this forum anyway during the last years for political discussions only. But to continue to use it for political discussions, to see the reactions of otherwise educated Western people full of the typical Western propaganda if confronted with information from outside their bubble seems, given those recent developments, impossible anyway. It looks that to survive here as a poster of political claims I would have to hide what I really think, and this is nothing I plan to do - last but not least, I post here using my real name. So, I can risk a ban. In some sense, it looks like a good test. If you ban me for this posting, it would have been useless to remain here anyway: It would be clear that there would be a moderation here which is unable or unwilling to follow elementary argumentation, which distributes warnings and bans without any connection to reality, simply for disagreement with the party line.
So, given that I have to expect that there is a danger of being permanently banned for this posting, and this posting being deleted here, I inform you that this posting has been saved and, in this case, I will probably publish it on my own website, together with the other information about why I was banned here.
Does it make sense to try to repeat something similar elsewhere? To find a forum dominated by the more educated (judging by some interest in science) part of the Western sheeple and to see how they react to confrontation with information from outside their bubble? Plausibly it makes no longer any sense. The decrease in the quality of the answers, the increase of personal attacks and the decrease of responses to the content was something not only visible, but even quite obvious, over the years I participated here. So, I doubt I will even try to find something similar, it is mostly loss of time anyway. The decline of the ideas of the Aufklärung in the West is now almost finished, why would one like to look how it further degenerates into complete insanity (as if all this gender insanity would not be enough)?
Whatever, just in case, I wish you nice dreams in your Western propaganda bubble and that the awakening from them will not be too harmful for you personally. Good bye.
