The first post was simply an observation that the Chicken's political misrepresentation of the 1960s X-MEN was easy to disprove, with a link to the essays in which I did so. Once that disappeared, I decided not to work too hard at the second post, and simply excerpted a couple of paragraphs disputing the Chicken's misconception of Stan Lee's words. The next day-- also gone.
I imagine that the head cheeses at Sequart justify their actions by viewing me as a troll rather than a proper debater. To that imagined accusation I quote from my post OPPOSITION VS. OPPUGNANCY:
...most trolls don't bother with degree. Their primary reason for posting on forums is to play "king of the hill," to trumpet their opinions with such overwhelming "oppugnance" that eventually everyone else gives up the game. If a troll thinks that Alan Moore's SWAMP THING kicks the ass of Harvey Kurtzman's TWO-FISTED TALES, then he will never recognize any aspect in which the latter exceeds the former, not even to the slightest degree.I was fully prepared to take on the Chicken in rational debate, if he had the guts to meet the challenge. I might have even consented to quit calling him the Chicken for the length of said debate. Did CC not want his precious screeds argued over? It's possible, but not likely, that he demanded the deletions. I still think he's chicken, of course, but I will admit that it's more likely that the cheesy administrators of Sequart made the decision to X out my responses.
In contrast, an argument between two opponents in search of the stimulation of "opposition" can be a genuine exploration as to what constitutes one's concepts of "quality." These two ideal opponents need not back down any more than the troll does. But a sustained rational argument must make use of the power of "degree."
I realize that nothing forces anyone on the web to tolerate divergent opinions. However, since Sequart already has a history of having tolerated divergent opinions in their comments-sections-- certainly when I was writing for them, I was not so shielded-- that makes their behavior inconsistent at best, and at worst a betrayal of the standards of rational debate to which they (seem to) aspire.