Unbiased:"'You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that. And you know it!"I agree with that. The above is only one of many good examples of what I'm talking about. It's simply that latest one and the one that I observed most directly.I don't get this business about Sand's saying that Miss P's complaints about PILOFOLO got him banned not being direct evidence. Please explain why that's not direct and I'll try to address you explanation. In my view, it's more or less an admission of what I'm talking about by the person who did the banning. How do you see it?
Alright, so you think I'm the cause of the mess...
That's that, then. I realize that Miss P and others agree with you and would like to see my voice permanently silenced. That's cool - it's exactly what I'm talking about.
I disagree, but I don't see any point in discussing it further. If you think my sarcasm and the fact that I disagreed with Miss P is enough to merit the hate fest that follows, we don't see eye to eye. And, yes, I did know that you were a regular.
If Miss P knew that posters were banned because of her complaints and then complained about a poster, I think it's safe to say she wanted the poster banned. Arguing otherwise is a bit like contending that someone who sticks a gun to another's head and pulls the trigger didn't necessarily want to shoot that person... that they were just really into pulling triggers. Who knew that indulging one's self in the normally benign hobby of trigger pulling would have such dire consequences in this case?Yeah, right.
I still think the evidence is clear. Sands said that PILOFOLO was banned because of complaints.
Miss P admitted that she did the complaining. Further, she made the complaints knowing that people get banned because of such complaints.
I agree that my analogy is imperfect, but I think it's also pretty appropriate.
Anyway, have a good holiday.
julie feeling very republican today and so need be told what think.