Sorry, Simon, but single posts is the best I’d ever hope or even try to offer. I have no intention of rehashing in their entirety three, four or five threads. Rhetorical question: by saying that single posts “out of context” wouldn’t suffice, is it safe to say that an occasional reference to a fellow poster as a “moron” or an “idiot” or a “a-hole” is acceptable?
This is exactly my point. If you don't have the time or energy to go trawling through all posts and topics to find "who started it" then why do you suppose I do? Why should I? If I come to a topic and there is name calling on both sides then I try and suggest everyone cool it. If someone didn't start something but has resorted to name calling in response to someone else then that is their bad luck if they get lumped in.
It would be simplistic to pick up on "moron" and "idiot" and the like while ignoring other probably more insulting comments that simply didn't contain them.
You *are* biased, Simon. That is no sin. We all are. It’s part of being human. Further, it’s okay if you admit it. Case in point: Yesterday one of your favorites caused a minor uproar when she said
"I find American patriotism to be excessive and very blinded. It's not to say other countries, whether in Europe, Asia, Australia or Africa, are not nationalistic, but I'd have to say I don't see such blinded ignorant patriotism as expressed by the Americans. I know "blinded ignorant patriotism" are strong words, but that is how many Americans do come across. They claim they live in the best country in the world, yet how many of them have stepped outside their own country borders?"
Despite the hurt feelings her words clearly engendered all around, you defended her tooth and nail. “She was only stating her opinion,” you said and, as a rebuke meant for her to the offended you said “it would be nice if she....” (paraphrasing). No stern “stop the insults or else” as others might have gotten but more of a soothing “come on now, Sis.” Jelly, OTOH, can say something like “bite me, Simon,” and is immediately banned (to be reactivated later).
Well, I don't think I am. If you read the topics you will see the reasons for both decisions clearly stated and you are taking snippets of them out of context. I defended no one "tooth and nail" as you try and make out. I'd be interesting to know though what exactly you think in that comment warranted a reprimand as opposed to an answer? Also, you have missed out my comments to her which contradict what you are saying.
Also, do you want every warning and issue to be public? No polite request by PM or Email? It seems I cannot win, whatever I do.
As for Prisca being one of my favourites ... well, I guess you added that to try and add weight and a bit of color to your argument but it simply isn't the case. Yes, I do have some favourites but they are not the people I suspect that many imagine. I'm also being accused by some of having Trauma_hound as a favourite. I think this shows just how rediculous claims like this are as I coudl post to numerous arguments I have had, posts edited and accounts deactivated.
You say: “No one is banned or threatened with banning over single misunderstandings.” Knowing you as I do, I have no doubt that’s true. I don’t follow the board as closely as some. Maybe the Jellys of the board are on some sort of ‘watch list’ owing to an amalgam of posts wherein over time they’ve gotten on your nerves and a “bite me” just sends you over the edge. OTOH, maybe others are friends of long standing and are on a leash 18 miles long; or happen to share your point of view on a particular war topic so that insults directed t'ward the opposing side aren’t noticed as much. (The SAME side I myself disagree with, btw, but it's still wrong to insult people.)
Well I think this goes both ways. Maybe the "prowar" people who have made insults won't admit or can't comprehend that they have been pretty damn insulting at times and there hasn't been the big fuss made over them. But no ... it seems they want one rule for them and a different one for everyone else.
Seems that many of the ones quick to call names are also quick to complain.
I take a post as I see it and if I think someone is trying to cause trouble or make an issue out of something that isn't then I can and will take some action. If I'm wrong then I will stand up and say so. What is the big deal? I have always openly admitted my mistakes ... something it appears some people find very difficult.
As I say... it’s cool however you run the board, Simon. I’m glad to be allowed to post here and proud of the way you run things. As I’ve said in the past: I don’t believe in a Jehovah, but if I did I’d think you were chosen to run this place. I support you totally, even though – as it is with everybody else I support -- sometimes you’re wrong. Period.
Thanks. I don't intend to do it for much longer though as I am frankly getting sick of the nit picking and unreasonable and unfair demands. Sometimes it is an uphill effort and there seems little cooperation from some to work together but every effort to make things difficult.
Perhaps I should be more strict? Less consultation and more 'authority'.