That's a trick question.

Ask yourself what assumptions you might be making first.>

All that's needed now is a half-decent pun.>

And yet...

<z>

You wrote <In fact, I'm also disappointed with <JFQ>'s lack of improbation - she's normally so concerned with the sanctity of forums like the <Bistro> and <Chessgames>.>

After 20 minutes of looking around and wondering what the heck you were talking about, I realized what must have happened.

I couldn't remember- or find- the offending post(s) that might have occasioned a fatherly concern for my moral soul, until I hit upon the idea of clearing my ignore list. Imagine my surprise to find the "offending post(s)" that I had "failed" to condemn!

Here's some daughterly advice for you: I don't question your opinions on morality because it's none of my business, so please try to refrain from taking my moral inventory- in this case mistakenly. I guess it didn't occur to you that I might not have seen the post(s) you refer to. That's not meant to be a criticism- it didn't occur to me either until later.

I have moral/political viewpoints like anyone else, but usually I don't come to cg.com to discuss them, for obvious reasons. I see literally no evidence that any - yes I said any- two members are capable of facing off on a moral debate whilst retaining even a whiff of basic civility. Really I speak of the <Rogoff> futile argument page, in the main. But it does spread over to other pages, which is really irritating.

Yes I have (recently) ranted and raved about off-topic posts damaging "work fora"- of which this forum is certainly one. That said, my objection to such off-topic posts is not meant to be a moral judgment, it is meant to be a utilitarian judgment.

"For me, when I say (scream, usually) "please keep political arguments out of the Biographer's Bistro" this is not a moral argument. It is a utilitarian argument- viz, such arguments interfere with our work. This was particularly grinding during the <me/you/Fred the Bear> episode in the Biographer's Bistro. I didn't want to hear any of that, but I couldn't put either of you on ignore either- I rank both of your chess posts in the "not to be missed" category.

But I can put on ignore the person you accused me of "not disapprobing" enough. He and his sock army have long been on my permanent ignore list. Not because I am necessarily against his politics- or for them for that matter- but because of his appalling lack of manners and good faith.

You, on the other hand... I think you are always in good faith, and I regard you to be one of the most well mannered people around cg.com.

He wants to turn Twitter into a free speech zone! He recently described himself as a "free speech absolutionist."

As far as administration goes, he's kicking out all the pink pussyhats, all the antifa scum, all the BLM losers, all the WOKE SNOWFLAKES, all the people who constantly whine and cry about HATE SPEECH - he's kicking them all to the curb and replacing them with regular Americans.

He said he thinks that Twitter is policing the content to the extreme and that it's very bad for the country and for democracy as an ideal around the world. I bet Trump will be back very soon, tweeting away.