This is a private forum. You have no expectation of freedom of speech; that only applies to the government censoring you. As a private website, GBFANS is free to ban anyone they want for any reasons they see fit and set the rules by which you will use their forums.
Ohhhh Scuba Steve⌠DAMN YOU!
Well, obviously if the moderator picks & chooses who to censor without probable cause itâs privately run. I broke no rules. It was the hypocritical aspect that I was getting at; which Alphagaiaâs âEcto Forceâ thread so conveniently points out. Where are the spoiler tags & modifications to the title on that? Iâm sure there are some international people somewhere where the information in that article hasnât reached. Itâs contents are similar to that of the nationally-run TV spot I mentioned (albeit a lack of visuals). Treat everyone equally is all Iâm saying.
The title, nor the extremely limited details revealed by Variety, and regurgitated by BleedingCool about Ecto Force are substantial enough to be considered even the least bit of a spoiler.
Itâs not hard to see why youâve focussed on that topic though, it was one posted by Alphagaia, with whom youâve charged me with showing unfair preference over you.
Six days after your last post in this topic and youâre still pitching a fit about the spoiler tags and it being retitled⌠this is what you consider the best use of your time?
Youâre welcome to contact another member of the moderator team to request the title be reverted and the spoiler tags removed, however Iâm giving you my assurance Iâll not be the one removing them.
Again, I initially saw the TV spot on television first which was then regurgitated by YouTube which I used as a point of reference. You honestly consider the mentioning of Rowan getting âzapped in the nutsâ in a nationally-run promo reveals unlimited details to the overall outcome of the film? lol. Thatâs like saying because we saw Slimer eating a hot dog in an ad, we know everything there is to know about GB16. (which of course, we donât)
This response comes six days later because obviously âbetter use of my timeâ suggests that I work, live my life, & donât spend every waking minute rebutting to Internet posts.
Ultimately, I was responding to someone (Scuba Steve) who responded to me & in light of the circumstances presented in this discussion, Alphagaiaâs âEcto Forceâ thread is an example that clearly fits the criteria. I canât help that. I donât think explaining my point of view constitutes âpitching a fitâ if the view Iâm expressing is justified with evidence to support my claim. I never once asked you to change the title back, I simply asked why it was done & in doing so, that everyone be put on the same playing field in regards to what is modified in their posts.
Youâre not right on this Kingpin simply because you get the âlikesâ of selected forum members. 
Whatâs with the double standard?
No, I consider it part of the end battle of which weâve already seen too much.
Good for you, and youâre not the only one with a day job and doesnât have all day to rebut internet posts.
No it isnât, and you can stop pretending it is. In the Ecto Force thread all we find out are the title, that itâs set in 2050, that it features a new team of Ghostbusters and that itâll be an animated series.
Nothing thatâs even in the same ballpark as an actual bit of footage from the latter-half of the reboot.
You called the actions âcensorshipâ when nothing was deleted, youâve overinflated the âEcto Forceâ example to try draw an unworkable comparison.
Yet the conclusion that can be taken by your references to it was that you had wanted it changed back. Iâve told you why it was done, Iâm tired of repeating myself.
The same is applicable to you.
Indeed.
Itâs quite symbolic. In fact, coming from Paul Feig, it seems like another cheap shot at both masculinity and the fanbase. The logo being the iconic symbol of Ghostbusters taking a proton stream to the groin. I could only imagine the reaction from feminist groups if Zuul was shot in the same spot or her â â â â â â â , and they clearly made that into a joke.
CONTENT REMOVED
And thatâs all she wrote.
While we do have a somewhat lax policy when it comes to what can be posted here, there are times where a filter still needs to be applied, and the removed remark was probably one of the most outlandish things Iâve come across as part of this discussion. You can consider yourself officially warned, Pomp.