"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <
XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Nope. I am doing what I am told to do: enforcing the
guidelines, if necessary in a rigourous way,
It all sounds well and good but you still failed to address
the fact that you canceled my query as to why John had been
banned by you.
Quote
I think you should not accuse me without knowing the facts.
I know enough facts such as that the above post didn't even
come close to violating any rules yet you canceled it.
Quote
This is not the first time you jump to the wrong conclusion
and get vocal about my cancellations (usually of your posts,
BTW).
Since I've also been the victim of your descrimination in the
past, I'd say that the above cancelation was evidence enough.
Quote
I have never seen an apology from you.
That's not true. If you mean in reference to you in bpot, I
did for trying to get your goat as to the origin of the f-word.
Other than that, you never deserved one from me.
If you mean for what I may have posted to others, I have when
appropriate. For example, when you tried to get me banned from
Borland's server, I freely admitted that my choice of wording
was poor and apoligized for that.
At this point, I also think that it's interesting to note that
neither Borland or the F.B.I. saw things the way that you did
which is more evidence of your bias.
Quote
And if you mean I also cancelled some of your messages, let
me tell you that there were equally good reasons for that,
Oh? Please explain what guideline was violated with my query
about you banning John? Remember, my entire post was quoted
and archived by now so no lame excuses please and 'Because I
can' or pointing to the disclaimer does nothing more than
illustrate your abuse.
Quote
So if you agree that many posts in off-topic do not belong
on this server, you are right. That is why they are
cancelled.
Your bias has clouded your judgement. There are many posts
that you let stand that should be canceled and others that
you do cancel that are within the guidelines.
Quote
If you are trying to say that I only cancel those I
presumably don't like, you are plainly and simply wrong.
That is not what I am saying. My contention is that your
"if necessary in a rigourous way" enforcement depends on
the author and/or subject matter. For example, you recently
allowed your gang to taunt and insult Jeff (one of the reasons
that he noted he was leaving) but when I point out that
anothers 'facts' are wrong, I get canceled if I also asked
if they had taken their meds that day. I'd say that that
makes me right and you wrong.
Quote
I do think, however, that your negative bias against me
influences your post.
What influences my post is your negative bias against me (and
others as well) as demonstrated by your latest cancelation of
one of my posts.
~ JD