The following users participating in the CP discussions about the topic experienced blocks (Please correct the list, these are the ones i have noticed):
By Andrew Schlafly Himself: Jirby, Raul, Argon, MickA, Kallium, KimEide, Stitch75, BenHur, Drek, Carolyn
By others: Toffeeman, AlexaJ, DRamon, DinsdaleP, YoungA
Emphases in reposted/quoted letters ...
The letters contain emphasised text (in boldface). It would be good to see some clarification in the article on whose emphases they are; if they are not Lenski's, they should probably either be clearly identified as non-original or edited out. If they are not part of the original Lenski material, a brief explanation of the intended significance of the added emphases might be worth considering.
- I see now that in looking straight at it I somehow missed the explanation that the bolding marked material censored from CW. Mea maxima culpa.
"By refusing to include the link to RationalWiki in Prof. Lenski's second reply, Mr. Schlafly did more than any other individual to raise RationalWiki's profile on the net."
I know I'm late to the party, but this article is brilliant. I feel amazing how after that Schlafly still came for more and did not bury his head on the sand until the dust had settled. --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yay, just yay!!! Aside from the original mess, that the letter had a link to RatWiki removed with the spam filter (which still stands there or see archive copy.) being an excuse was quite funny, demonstrating that excluding mention of RationalWiki is a higher value than truth or accuracy or historical relevance. There are simple ways around spam filters, even if the person doesn't have admin access. Rather, this was active censorship, as if conservatives cannot tolerate Bad Opinions and need protection by Daddy Assfly. --Some random Smith (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)