Well that clarified the question i had originally asked.
Please note I had posted only once on the original andrew thread (among 114 posts). This was my second post for which it appears i’m being asked to shut up. Nice.
As a closing comment I do however find it interesting that so far nobody has been able to point out the specific post that caused andrew to be banned.
However since I’m being told quite agressively that I am apparently not welcome to post my opinion I will take the “hint” and joint the silent majority…
Dale said, quite plainly I thought, that he could post specific reasons, but he chose not to, in fairness to Andrew, since Andrew is no longer able to post.
It should be enough for you to believe that Dale had reasons for what he did.
You’re right, no-one has, no-one will, and no-one can. A single post from a forum participant (and not, say, spammers) will never get someone banned here. But you keep talking about this single post as if it exists, even though people have explained to you that there is no single post. It’s a good rhetorical device when it works, because it makes it look like Dale and I are ready to jump on anyone who makes one misstep.
It isn’t working, though, because you’ve been told repeatedly that Andrew has had a long history of disruptive behavior here. He was banned for it once, and then he created another account to get around the ban, and us evil censors let him get away with it to give him a second chance. He hadn’t changed a thing, though, so we acknowledged our error in doing so.
I’m slowly learning that second chances are not worth the trouble.
I locked the thread in response to a legitimate concern that, essentially, it’s a thread about two people, one of whom is not here to defend himself. (I’m the other.) But the issue being raised, our old friend “Dale vs. Free Speech,” you guys are free to debate as long as you wish, I suppose.
In addition, if I may make a philosophical point:
the Unreproached might still be reproachable–just
that nobody ever got around to reproaching him.
(Something similar follows for the Undisputed,
mutatis mutandis.)
Actually I just like to say ‘reproach’:
My unreproachable
behaviour is above reproach, and so I reproach
those would-be reproachers who try to reproach
the unreproachable. Reproach, reproach, reproach,
reproach, reproach…
please refer to the posting policies. those are the only rules that apply. you are referring to a discussion thread. i imagine dale is a particpanting in a discussion when the statements were made, and so the making up of rules in a discussion is not reasonable or responsible for a moderatar for the entire forum unless the same rule is then stated in the posting policy. i am not making this up, i do not believe it is opinion. i am jus trying to objectify it. every time the finger is pointed at andrew or somebody else, that is a violation of the rules, if it cannot be reasoned out.
i am not just wanting andrew back, provided it is just, i am also wanting a healthy environment - for everyone.
my issue is the moderation process needs accountablity/ i believe it is failing us now. it is not dale per se and his ownership. it is the moderation process, the modus opernadi. it has major faults.
rules are made up and imbedded in threads?
dale’s rules only apply to dale and anyone who wants dale to rule over them. i am sure he knows this. they do not apply to me. the posting policy rules apply to me and the rest of us who choose to be civil.
dale is simply imposing his will — thru the power to delete. overriding practical policy as he chooses. he has no rules per se, just might. pretty special eh.
Failing us??? Yowza!
I just though this was a messageboard about whistles, flutes and pipes, I had not realized we were trying to establish a Utopian society in cyberspace.
