All acceptable points of view are welcome on FlyerTalk. My issue might be broader than yours. I'm not sure why any member (this reference is not about you specifically, but just a general example) would think that the TOS has to cover each and every specific item in the world that may need interpretation. I just don't think it's possible, though there are some members who think the TOS should be more defined than it is.

As for being troubled by this double standard you seem to see, I see it a bit differently. I really don't see FT the way you describe. For instance, your remark about the TSA. If you were to research my own personal remarks, you would read that I personally have not dumped on that group, and in fact have posted that I've never had a problem with them. Trying to connect me with anyone posting snarky remarks about the TSA would not serve a purpose here because a connection does not exist.

But pulling back from your point of view just a little, what do we see? We see in general society (something FlyerTalk did not invent) an ongoing snarky attack on the TSA by literally every form of media and lots of people. From the editorial pages of the nation’s largest and most respected newspapers to Jay Leno you will find that the TSA is being made fun of, is the recipient of sarcasm because of their dealings with the traveling public, and it is politically harangued as well.

So when scathing remarks about the TSA have been expressed by the traveling public in every form of communication known to man, to hold FT liable seems to me a bit unreasonable.

Now, I personally think that some of the members who visit that forum have a very poor ability to express themselves in what I would call a reasonable manner and know that in the past I’ve wandered into that forum and told a few members there to pipe it down a little. But there is something to consider in doing that - which side might you join when they and others complain about their right to free speech or variations of that argument?

As for the gays comment. At this point in society, it would be hard to believe that anyone would think they can possibly change another's point-of-view on that. Among those who visit FlyerTalk, I can't think of a single member who has ever changed their mind about gay society based on persuasive arguments on FlyerTalk. And because of that, the idea to post that "gays are evil" would immediately be seen as nothing more than a trolling comment, designed to commence a shouting match with no victory of argument possible. It should not be a topic to name names for the sake of a personal attack, and that’s why there is the covenant in the TOS. It is a topic, and there are others, that is often defined as troll-bait not just on FlyerTalk, but very likely on just about every other major responsible bulletin board in a single category like FlyerTalk.

Again, moving that view back a little. Was it not just recently that similar comments to your example lead one of the stars of Gray's Anatomy to be dismissed from that TV show? So, is FlyerTalk showing all that much more of a double standard than much of the U.S.? Trolling for negative reaction is something we all learn from politics, politics at the highest level here in the U.S., and to hold FlyerTalk responsible for that reflection just seems a bit of a stretch to me.

As for your comment "even the moderators of that forum will participate in those sorts of attacks." I'm sorry, but it is likely we will have to agree to disagree on this observation. I would never consider holding a moderator responsible for their comments made as a regular member of FlyerTalk, unless of course those comments were in violation of the current TOS, and even then only if their comments were more an affront than other members. I have long believed that moderators are (and really, they were) members first and should remain that way. Who the heck would volunteer to assist anyone on FlyerTalk if it meant that they would have to relinquish their privilege to be able to post the very same things that another member would be able to post? I just can't see any rational argument that would support that point of view. I've always found it fairly simple to separate the posts moderators make in their role as a volunteer moderator from those they are making as a regular member. But that is me.

As for picking and choosing which types of posts are okay and which aren't, FlyerTalk never pretended to be in that business. What FlyerTalk did and still does today is provide a place on the Internet where travelers of all kinds can come and learn more about their miles and points, and general travel information as an aside.

Members liked FlyerTalk so much for the community it provided, that they then wanted to make FlyerTalk a place where they could engage in other conversations they were having, conversations about sex, religion and even politics.

Did FlyerTalk invent those topics? No. Did FlyerTalk have much to do with these members thoughts on those topics? Probably not much at all since most of our members pretty much had their points of view on gay rights, abortion, Bush vs. Clinton, AIDS and the challenges of the Catholic Church well before they ever heard of FlyerTalk. But despite what they knew about those topics and others (or thought they knew), most did not know everything about how to get the optimum value and benefit from their loyalty programs.

That’s why we’re here and that's all we're trying to do. The only solution for what I think you might be seeing is for us to get completely out of any topic other than miles and points - and that just might get you an argument or two around here these days.

Again, your point of view is welcome here and I only hope that I've been able to provide you with some background on how I see things differently than you. There is no purpose served here to debate these things because frankly, that's not why I created FlyerTalk, and I'm not a good debater anyway.

Cheers.