There is someone who is deleting my response to "John Carpenter", in the Iran 1970 recent pictory thread. It must be said that it contained absolutely no language that can possibly be considered vulgar, offensive or threatening.

My post contained the fact that in January 1979, the population in Iran was not 70 million, as "John Carpenter" asserts. It was closer to 45 million, perhaps 50 million. I also suggested that this person read a book. That way he would have the facts. If I can do it, so can he, whoever he really is.

I also suggested that he is no position to call anyone a loser, as it is very obvious that this person uses multiple false screen names, such as "John Carpenter", "James Smith", "Jamshid Niavarani" and "Jacob Cohen", among others. The writing style under all of these screen names are not similar, they are identical. It is obvious even to the blind and the illiterate that these noms de plume are actually one and the same person. The posts are all the same repetitive mantra. I stated that someone who resorts to such methods cannot have that much going for them in their own right.

So, I would like to know, what aspects of my response to "John Carpenter" are objectionable and grounds for deletion?

Calling him Mr. Multiple Personality or Mr. Multiple Screen Names? I use one screen name, while he uses many. It's simple math. The site administrators can track the IP addresses of just the 4 screen names I mentioned, and I will bet you that I am 100% correct. But if I call this person out on that fact, I get deleted? Sheer nonsense.

Calling his responses over the past several months recycled tripe? Saying that if he were speaking rather than typing he would sound like a parrot with hiccups?

All anyone has to do is take a minute (or even less), and type in the names I have mentioned. Under the name of Jacob Cohen he can call Marvin Kharrazi a funny big nosed Iranian Jew. As John Carpenter, he has called people homosexual. Under the other names he has used less often, he defends the words of "John Carpenter" (himself). But somehow, my post, which contained none of that, was deemed unworthy for publication and was deleted.

JJ can establish and modify terms of service at will. But where is the consistency? If there are to be rules, then they must apply to everyone equally. This has nothing to do with the "Nothing is Sacred" motto. Obviously, there are things that are sacred, while for others, anything goes.

Cartoons depicting erections and sodomy are apparently acceptable content, but calling someone out for an error in fact and correcting it, or questioning their overall character is not acceptable? Strange. Very strange.

I put my real name out here, and I have made my views very clear, in matters of politics and religion. On top of that, I have backed up what I say, unlike many others who run away when questioned. I have been labelled every dirty word in the book, and have seen several posts containing both veiled and overt threats that have made it on to the site, by anonymous cowards who in reality are actually scared of their own shadows. But do I get defended? No. Am I asking to be? Again, no.

Let's see if this doesn't get deleted. "Nothing Is Sacred" might need to be changed to "Nothing is Surprising".