Originally Posted by Karel Jansens

It's just one freakin' thread in -- how many active discussions?

If the population of the forum insists on having nanny rules, it'll have nanny rules. But I will most likely no longer be here...

Originally Posted by Texrat

Okay, I was going to drop it but apparently something else needs to be said after YoDude's post (with which I mostly agree):

1) we shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because one poster has a personal problem with another's input. By that I mean none of us should have to refrain from offering our reasoned opinions anywhere in the forum IMO. That entitles troublemakers to de facto control.

2) somehow a few have come to the absurd notion that there were 2 combatants in that thread. Check again. There was a thread-starter making an announcement, followed by a few expressing doubt-- then a hyperbolic reaction by the thread-starter to that doubt. After that, numerous members of the community universally took the thread-starter to task for his nonsense, which regardless of who posted was unreasonably directed at ONE person.

I'm sorry, but if we're going to belabor this at least get the facts straight.

Specifically:



Censorship? and.. BOTH parties? Looks like a math error there. Count participants again, and re-evaluate one particpant's involvement, please. Thanks.

Second EDIT: seriously YoDude: there was no back and forth between 2 posters. There was back and forth between one poster (about the other) and several other posters. The other poster (me) mostly made some silly asides and refrained for the most part from engaging the one. Hell, I had him on Ignore!

Originally Posted by Texrat

If Ignore alone sufficed, that would be great. But again: as long as the target is the only one using it, and the troublemaker is hyperactive, then Ignore doesn't work./rant

Originally Posted by Milhouse

Correct, one thread where Texrat was the target of abuse - and direct abuse at that. Also don't forget the same thing happened with Sap also targeting Texrat (and me too for that matter!))

Originally Posted by Texrat

*sigh*... I see my relevant points were completely and summarily dismissed so you could "prove a point", YoDude.

So your position is I should not be allowed to participate in a discussion where falsehoods are spread about my participation here. Sweet. Ironic, too... and if you're going to stretch the "personal attack" definition that thin, you're in danger of hypocrisy in labeling me.

My definition of personal attack is the blatant, unwarranted type. But if you view what I said about absurd remarks as a personal attack, then I sincerely apologize because that was not the spirit in which it was intended. Ah, speaking of examples: THAT is how you distinguish a true personal attack from remarks intending far less harm: an apology and subsequent alteration in tone. Not too hard for adults to understand and master, I'd think.

Originally Posted by YoDude

Thanks for proving my point about not contributing to this thread.

I could take your post as your belief that MY OPINION is not based on fact or worse absurd. I can see how some could take this as a personal attack.

If your not part of the solution then maybe you're part of the problem.

Notice I avoid using declaratives in response to another's posts.

Edit: Same reason as Milhouse, above.

I also see from others edits how my math abilities are now in question.

Originally Posted by geneven

Could you point out the line in which anyone suggested you should "not be allowed to participate" in any discussion? I missed it.