Quote:
Originally Posted by Midtowner
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.
|
Great, Midtowner! You'll make a great lawyer, favoring form over substance! Not a problem for me, "from time to time." We do what we need to do to represent our clients.
This isn't a "lawyerly" forum, it is an exchange of ideas forum with the focus on Oklahoma City. Hopefully, it is a place that intelligent discussion is the guage. Hopefully, it is a place where substance rather than form reigns supreme.
You are, from my memory, correct in saying that "Keith" wasn't one of your biggest fans! But, so what? Does "Keith=not one my biggest fans" equate to banishment in your book these days? If you are friendly to that equation, how do you handle my support of you during your banishment, and my support of you during your "reinstatement?" Do you think that I should perceive, in fairness, your situation in a different way than I do Keith and Patrick?
You lumped Keith and Patrick together in your "good" comment. You've voiced your grievances against Keith, but what about Patrick? We're talking about two individual people here, so I guess you have a case with Patrick, as well?
Midtowner, "lots" of people weren't your "biggest fan" here. You posted (in olden times) in a provocative manner. You know that's so. I even joined with you on many occasions (e.g., gay issues, whatever) before I decided that engaging in argument for argument's sake was not worth the time spent), but that fact did not prevent me from coming to your defense. Not only once, but on many occasions.
You once were "Thomas Jefferson" (at least in your avatar).
So, Midtowner, are you straight out saying that it was a "good" thing to ban Patrick and Keith, even though, and perhaps because, they didn't "like" you or were your adversaries?
If not that, why do you say that it was "good" for them to be banned as well as stripped of their status?
I'm listening.