However, I still think that your posts are excessively blunt rather than using normal justification (e.g. saying "outright lie" a lot, arguably arguments by assertion or at least unnecessarily adding assertions).
Correct. This is primarily due to (being burnt out due to) rebutting the nonsense from the likes of jonald and franky countless number of times, and yet they keep persisting. It's important to not let newbie readers get deceived by false prophets.
A negative rating there is about opinion more than any thing else.
You may think that it is not justified, but someone else may think that it is. As long as isn't overwhelming support for one side, then it is perfectly valid.
In jonald's case, he makes misleading posts which people often make in the context of an argument and an ongoing heated debate. To discredit his username personally because of this I think is abuse of your power.
Disagreed. He has not made them solely in context of any arguments, but has done so also by creation of his own misleading threads (look through a few posts back).
Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.
This is impossible to judge unless those bought accounts have been proven with evidence of addresses. You can't reasonably say that jonald_fyookball is a bought account as he has signed a message here, and you can't reasonably say that he is a "shill account" as he has a clear trading history and activity for things other than support of big blocks.
Read my post again. I was merely pointing out something that I had observed over the years. It has nothing to do with jonald. I did not use the wording "all of those".
Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense. But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.
Completely wrong. QS aims to imply that holding/processing a lot of money means that you're trustworthy, whilst trying to smear my name (someone is also holding/processing a lot of money; obviously not the same amount as BITMAIN).
It does make you trustworthy if it's suggesting that you held a lot of money without scamming people. Holding money without scamming people is not the same as holding money.
Well then (the distinction was rather intuitive), if QS thinks that holding a lot of money without scamming people makes one trustworthy then he should stop smearing my name. Otherwise, this makes him a hypocrite as I've pointed out in an earlier statement of mine which you've falsely labeled as "show further biases".
It's not censorship in that it doesn't prevent them from posting their views elsewhere, but it is a means of manipulating people's views about what the Bitcoin community wants or why they want it.
Therefore, it is not censorship.