I only did it to make a point, that I stongly disagree with the protocol, and frankly, I have better things to do than post here. To me, negative votes w/o any comment(s) to substantiate them, are ridiculous. I once debated a retired lawyer, Tim Beazley on Amazon.com, a debate that went on for weeks. Points were made, rebutted, sometimes rephrased, etc, by both sides. Beazley used a lot of ad homs, his favorite being IDiot for ID'ist.

I enjoyed the debate, feeling that my args trumped his, and none of mine utilized ad homs of any kind; only logic, and 'reference based' when needed. At some point down the road, Amazon not only banned Beazley from commenting, but they deleted the scores of comments he had made over several years. Shortly after that, they banned his close associate John Kwok from posting there as well. I assume it was the result of complaints (none by me), or of having assumed a more conservative position than in the past.

Later, I criticized Amazon for their actions, and got plus voting numbers for that comment. But hey, I don't give a shit about the voting points, neither here, there or on youtube. At least in my case, they count for nothing, nada zip. My arguments are logic based, and the result of fifteen years of biologic study of genetics, ten years of blogging, and around forty years of engineering experience. Negative points can actually increase the scrutiny and review of comments, and in some cases, actually help to make a point. It's hiding or deleting comments that I strongly disagree with, and as I stated above, I'm outa here.

If you still think that censorship (or burying comments) is the way to go, read Yudkowsky's original post again, since he makes my point. And if you're the least bit curious regarding my past dialogues, search leebowman, "lee bowman", beauleeman, or "beau leeman".