Search results for query: *

Some of our conversations went that way, but not most of the earliest ones. You're misremembering. That's really all I can say. If you feel you're not, fine. Anyway I'm done discussing this. We're way off-topic and this isn't the place to discuss this in the first place. Don't want to make the...

As I said, them failing to message you about it has nothing to do with whether or not it was their reason. I disagreed immensely with countless things Austin and Xinnamin did while moderators and admins, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did fail to do it, but that is what I recall from the...

*No one who matters in this discussion, then. That's not why it was seen as an attack: It was seen as one because it was a criticism of religion aimed at, and in parody of, 43. That's been stated multiple times by Locke himself, so your statement about denial is more applicable to you than me...

This is constantly repeated regarding issues like this, but Matt was banned regarding repeat issues with him around that time, only the last of which was him posting the offensive image in a blog. And it also wasn't determined that this wasn't the appropriate action to take, either; a compromise...

43 and JuicieJ didn't give you an infraction. To the contrary, Locke confirmed not only that 43's beef with you had nothing to do with the mod action regarding your blog, but that he was dealt with as well: Someone else breaking the rules in response to your blog has nothing to do with...

Except no one, moderator or otherwise, is taking issue with your opinion or even your statements regarding religion. As has been pointed out multiple times.

It makes no sense for you to criticize the moderators of judging a statement of opinion which was a criticism as an attack or insult -- which isn't what happened but it is what you're saying did -- and then turn around and tell me I'm insulting you or anyone because I criticize your argument...

I didn't. If you're going to ask me to stop misunderstanding you, you should bother to understand me first. It doesn't matter whether you intended to direct it at him or not. It was directed at him via the way you posted it. There is no other way it reads. Your intent to offend him isn't even...

The context indicates that the blog was directed at 43. As I stated earlier this is the only possible interpretation of the post. If Kitsu really did not intend that -- and I can't even begin to describe how much I do not buy that -- then his blog was badly-composed and was destructive and...

If the content of the message and the context in which it were posted are not proof enough of how the post impacts the community, then nothing is and nothing can ever be moderated at all. Which, I shouldn't need to say, wouldn't be good. Your notion of how a moderator should determine when and...

Are those other blogs also offensive towards the people whose blog titles are being referenced? If not, that's not a relevant comparison because the situations aren't the same. Can't speak of the intent of the mod team but what I can speak of is the consistency of moderation -- which the...