I provided a summary in addition to spelling out the link. It started out, "The upshot is..." and I described what I see as the essence of the issue that was presented at the link, which is the same issue as the topic. I don't know if what I wrote is still available to be analyzed but I can't find it, so I have no way to defend my claims about what I wrote. I went ahead and presented the dialog itself, as the notice suggests.Reason: C.2. Links that are neither (1) summarized nor (2) a credible source of a specifically identified fact Instead of telling us that there is a dialogue elsewhere, present it or an adequate summary of it on the forum. Once you have become an established member you can post links, but you should still provide a summary..
What troubles me is that the position I take is not popular, and since the reason my post was rejected is simply false ("The upshot of it is..." is obviously a summary, and the notice says "Links that are neither (1) summarized..." and "but you should still provide a summary."), I am left to suspect that I'm being censored. Does that happen here, even among people discussing philosophy? Or am I just too sensitive? The notice also presumes that links are only good as sources of "specifically identified fact," which cuts off a lot of exploration and possibly interesting commentary.
Anyway, I really liked my summary so if it's available anywhere, how can I get it? I could try to recreate it, but I've noticed that what I write is usually better in its initial form. I think the immediacy of the response imbues the text coming out of my fingers with some special quality.
Thanks!