[stupac2]

Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

Look, if you're going to call me out at least have the courtesy to name me...

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by re-hashing this ad nauseam, but I want to point out that the Administrator post that explained ferrari's ban specifically stated that it wasn't just one action that did it, and that in previous private conversations between them he had admitted to "stirring the pot", ie trolling. Saying "oh well stupac started it" is missing the point, if you look at all the various threads that blew up there was a common denominator, and it wasn't me.

(That said if anyone really takes issue with the way that I post going forward, feel free to let me know. I know it might not seem like it sometimes but I am a quite reasonable person and willing to take feedback to heart.)

[stupac2]

Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

Look, if you're going to call me out at least have the courtesy to name me...

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by re-hashing this ad nauseam, but I want to point out that the Administrator post that explained ferrari's ban specifically stated that it wasn't just one action that did it, and that in previous private conversations between them he had admitted to "stirring the pot", ie trolling. Saying "oh well stupac started it" is missing the point, if you look at all the various threads that blew up there was a common denominator, and it wasn't me.

(That said if anyone really takes issue with the way that I post going forward, feel free to let me know. I know it might not seem like it sometimes but I am a quite reasonable person and willing to take feedback to heart.)