posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM
I'm making this to get some clarification on 9/11 threads under review..
Recently mods have taken it upon themselves to put certain 9/11 threads 'under review'
These mods never actually participate in debating in those threads, they just put them under review and give no explanation as to why.
It would be good if mods like 'donttreadonme' could explain in the thread why they feel to put it under review, and give some clarification as to
what the outcome of the 'review' was.
Take the 'Intercepted' thread for example, that is supposed to be under review, but no reason given as to why, and no outcome has been decided on
when the 'review' will be concluded, and what the review consisted of.
Can you please give us some idea of who takes part in these reviews, what parts of the thread do you review, and what made you enforce the review in
the first place.
It seems that it's all a bit vague, and reviews never come to their fruition. I'm personally waiting to see if the Intercepted thread will become
If anyone has any views on 9/11 thread reviews and their processes then feel free to post some comments on this subject, I feel it deserves to be
addressed by the mods at least. Cheers