You couldn't handle that. Your point was that I lacked the social "standing" to disagree with you openly on this forum. You called in your attack dogs like Irrx, Thisiswrong and sundry others who then spent hours and pages attacking me and my character. Re-read the thread, most of it is still there except for Irrx's posts. You engaged in the insults yourself as well, but you were mostly content to have your cohort do the work. Behind the scenes, you were busy complaining about other posters who also disagreed with you about related issues. Those complaints resulted in at least one of the posters with whom you disagreed being permenantly banned from the site.
None of these things are true except (a) that most of the thread is still there except for IrrX's posts and (as modified) (b) that I complained (to my friends) three or so times about some of the things people were saying in that thread. Absolutely nothing I said to my friends about how aggravating that thread became resulted in PILOFOLO's being banned. Indeed, I doubt Sands has ever read a single post of mine in the SFLSD thread. I have already shared the content of my complaint to Sands that did reference PILOFOLO, which was focused on different circumstances, a different thread and a different set of posters.
In any case, as I said earlier, I do not wish to argue with you about this any further, as it is neither productive nor relevant. I just want to make it clear that I (still) reject your version of events, and I am certain that any disinterested person who wished to go back and read the entire thread would as well. Please stop accusing me of these things, as you said you would several days ago now.
3) Again, I understand that we have fundamentally different ideas concerning what these chat rooms should be about. You think they should be largely social networking sites and that those who make the most use of them as such should be able to censor, exclude and harass those with whom they disagree. I favor open fora where all can express their viewpoints and that constructive disagreement/discussion can lead to mutual understanding and perspective broadening. We are simply fundamentally different people with fundamentally different perspectives.
I do not support censorship, exclusion, or harassment. If you read my posts in this thread and elsewhere, for instance, you will see that I have repeatedly argued (e.g., here
) that posters should be banned for only a narrow range of offenses and they should be given warnings before being banned or before any other action is taken on their accounts. I also asked you specifically what you think the moderators and others should do to make people feel more welcome and to deal with situations where posters (rightfully and wrongfully) feel victimized, and I think this is an appropriate thread for you to share any ideas you have about this.
Just for the record, I never said (and do not think) that this forum should be used largely as a social networking site. I just don't see a major problem with some posters using it as such and (going along with my liberal view of how the board should be moderated) I don't think we should delineate good and bad uses in the way you imply. Let's just let people post where and how they want to post unless they violate the community standards that Sands laid out earlier in this thread.