I saw no posting from you at all, much less questions, in the "Aborigine" thread and in this thread came up only with the following:

Don't we have enough darn threads regarding reputation already?

My answer: Yes, we do.

The other was not really a question, but it could be interpreted as such:

Then explain how you think that is OK to call us gestapo

My answer: I do not think it is okay. I greatly dislike the misuse of terms (in the past I have objected to "Fascist" and "Nazi") as they not only are insulting to the recipients but also dilute the onus which should be placed squarely on those who actually qualify.

Undoubtedly in the course of the thousands of posts you have made in Omni, you have asked many other questions. However, these two threads were the only logical places for me to look.

Of course, none of this has to do with the issue at hand: Specifically, why certain people are allowed to repeatedly get away with extremely offensive posts (and the one I cited above was one of the more mild ones) whereas others find their posts removed. (I have not seen Cactus Pete's post, but am going to take your word for it that it was in violation of the TOS -- just as the one proceeding it, which was allowed to stand, was in violation.)

I have to admit that it does confuse me. If I considered the Omni mods to be "terrible" people I would understand. I will even accept Sean's statements that he is a Republican who tends more to the right. And, yes, I have seen your not-too-fond opinions of Hillary.

Moreover, on an individual level, I have the highest respect for Scott (while not sharing his political views).

Yet for all of that, time after time, posters from the extreme left are allowed to publish some of the most vile things imaginable while much more mild posts from the right are removed.