Dear Mindweak,
You are not the only poster on here to get frustrated and have their posts removed. It has happened to me many times, usually in 'discussions' with Ventolin. Often the comments were factual and accurate, but they were still removed. Unfortunately, this happens. I don't think you should see it as some sort of personal vendetta against you when yours are.
I agree with much of what you have written, but I also agree with some of what Rekrunner believes/states and a lot of what Coevett has posted too. I don't agree with everything that any of those three write, and you won't find any two posters who agree on everything.
I think what some get annoyed/frustrated with, is when some posters collect bits of information, put their own spin on it, and then post it on this website as if they were facts. Ventolin was very good at doing that, although he had a clear agenda.
This is not necessarily done on purpose, but if you make a claim about something, then you better make sure that you can back it up and provide evidence which supports it. If not, then you can't be surprised if someone else argues back with factual evidence that contradicts your own position on a topic. If someone wants to make a claim that they believe "such and such" doped based on....., then as long as that poster makes it clear that this is an opinion and not a fact, then it's ok.
I have to say, it does seem to me that the majority of posters on here of late especially, WANT to believe everyone dopes and WANTS to see all athletes failing tests. It seems that this is more important to them, the destruction of the sport, than actually enjoying the performances and discussing them in a positive light! Of course there will always be cheats in all walks of life, and it is a fact that there have been dopers who got away with it and there are dopers getting away with it now. However, it is easy and too simplistic to tarnish everyone with the same brush over the last 70 years or so. Yes, there has been corruption in the IAAF, but the current spate of positives can surely only be a good thing, as it demonstrates a desire from the top to catch those who are cheating.
I, like you, had my doubts about Kenyan and other north African middle and distance runners for decades. Not because of the colour of their skin but because they lived and trained in countries which were not testing their athletes to anything like the same extent as most others throughout the world. I have certainly alluded to the likes of EL G, and even Kiprop as probable dopers, based on progression, splits in their races, etc, but this was only an opinion. I never stated it as fact, as we simply didn't know for sure. However, this doesn't mean that all Kenyans dope, just like we know that not all Europeans are clean.
You seem to think that because you claimed Kenyan doping in the past and were criticised for doing so, and have now been somewhat vindicated, this gives you the right to make future claims which should be immune to criticism from others!?
I have to say that on the whole EPO timeline topic, that appeared on this thread or another, recently, Rekrunner was correct in his criticism of you. You took a lot of disparate pieces of loosely connected information from a variety of sites (some reliable, some not so) and then interpreted them in your own way, before posting various links on here and claiming all the information to be facts. Even some of your links contradicted other links you shared.
You claimed various pieces of information as 'facts' which simply are not true:-
EPO was not available in any shape or form for use in the 1970's;
Coe and co did not use EPO to set WRs in 1979;
EPO was not mass produced in 1987. The link and quote you gave clearly stated that the METHOD for mass producing EPO was discovered in 1987, which isn't the same thing at all.
There were others, but these were the main ones.
The irritating thing for me, and I'm sure for others on here, is that despite being made aware of these inconsistencies and inaccurate interpretation of the information you provided, you obstinately refused to see their point of view and instead went on the offensive and reiterated them as facts once more! I agree that some posters can be somewhat rude in their attacks or criticism, and that is not helpful, but sometimes it is best to admit when you have written something wrong (and I'm in no way saying that you purposely did so) rather than dig your heels in.
I think your input is very useful and good for debate, but perhaps it is best to choose your battles more wisely. Some fights are better to walk away from, unless you know unequivocally that you are right and can produce evidence to back it up as a certainty.