Sorry , I can not put up with this!
John you hace accused me of several violations,
I have asked you to clarrify ....the silence is deafening!
If you can not substanciate your accusations then the correct thing to do would be to offer me a public appology.
I have a few other questions:
Keep in mind that truth is relative, depending on perspective.
I don't understand what this means. Truth is truth no? It's not a rubber concept. What are we trying to say here. No offence, but I see truth as a black and white thing, not a grey area....Could you attempt to explain or restate this for me. I wish to understand the guiding principles on this site.
When an individual feels offended, send a message back to the offender only.
Okay one of your new guiding principles...so no one sent me any email...so who is it I offended ...you claim I have.Why did no one email me to ask me to delete what they found offensive.
When anyone detects that a posting may have been offensive, send a message to the poster. The person may not have realized that the post was offensive.
I took this to mean a PM or an email. Is this what this guiding principle requires. I suspect it is .
When I pointed out to George he should not be taking Van to task for his post in public, I broke this Rule.
When George went at at Van over tag lines in public and he continues to do so. I believe he violates this Rule.
John when you treatened me with banning in public and when you accused me of multiple offences under your new code, you also violated your own rules. Were was my email asking to clarrify or delete.
So one more question John, Do you plan to follow you own rules or you also above the law?
First time I was banned I took Bill too task for his behaviour. I'm sure we all remember the straw man incident.I took a moderator and IUKF board member to task for rude comments not following the rules. Read my tag line it should come as no surprise.
When I was allowed to return to the forums you were the new moderator, you started moderating before George anounced your position. When I tried to discuss. My banishment your position was basically piss off it's a done deal.
So what am I to surmize from all this:
1) Don't take IUKF board members or moderators to task for their in appropriate behaviour.(based on one banning and one threatend banning)
2) Don't expect the site moderator to follow the rules of to deal in a honest manner with me, or even respond to questions.
30 Don't expect moderators to follow the rules they ask you to comply with.
Just my perception Oldfist but I see you as Georges instrument, your not here to moderate anything, to moderate one must have an open mind and listen to both sides and enforce the rules.....hell man your breaking the rules your self. As far as I'm concerned your hear to get rid of me just or not. (Based on your approach to date)
Hey your not paranoid if they are really after you!
But the bottom line :
Laird was banned for pointing out a moderators in appriopriate behaviour.
Laird was public threatened with banishment for pointin out to the site owner he was breaking his own rules.
Laird days are numbered he pointed out to the site cop that the cop was breaking his own rules.
Laird's days are numbered the witch hunt is drawing to a close.
Any way John as I indicated in a previous post the jury was still out on you as far as public opinnion.
I'm still waiting for your appology!
But I suspect most hunters don't bother appologising to the prey. I feel your hunting not moderating John.
Guess I've decided at any rate.