Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Loudenback
Now, I'm sure that these statements are reconcilable, but there does seem present in your 1st remark something other than dispassionate objectivity and agreement that the banning was "good," for reasons you did not disclose.
|
Doug,
I don't see how the two statements even have to be reconciled. What one
does and what one
believes are two entirely different things. Perhaps my condemnation is more for the former of those two than the later?
Keith made it no secret that he wasn't my biggest fan. In fact, he's the reason I disappeared for a few months. I suddenly found him nitpicking at what I did while allowing others to get away with murder (e.g., calling my wife a "waste," a "future unfit mother," etc.) He had acted against me, deleting my posts, banning my name on multiple occasions. His actions were reversed every time because they were found to be without foundation and unreasonable.
So am I sorry to see him gone? Not at all.
mods, feel free to delete whatever in this post is objectionable. As I read the TOS, it says "advocacy" of a banned member is verboten.... it says not a thing about condemnation. I'm pretty sure I can prove every bit of what I'm saying as I should have the emails and PM's to show what occured.
Also, FWIW, this whole thread violates the TOS in that it is questioning the acts of a moderator/the admin. I feel my posts are in line because I'm questioning someone who is an
ex-moderator, thus not seemingly falling under the definition of that rule.