[cardcrimson]

You don’t actually have to read all the posts from the nattering nabobs of negativism of they upset you.  Everyone has a right to post, good, bad, or ugly; but not everyone has to be read if you find their posts tendentious.  And that goes the other way too; for the people who find the Shawpologists too polyanna, you don’t have to read us.

BC

Evidently, that's not the case. Some people don't have the "right" to post, good, bad or ugly. As I'm now apparently unbanned and can post, I'm still curious why I was banned in the first place and was provided no explanation. I even reached out privately to an admin for an explanation, and disappointingly, he didn't give me the courtesy of a reply. What a bummer from a Stanford guy. . . .

[cardcrimson]

You don’t actually have to read all the posts from the nattering nabobs of negativism of they upset you.  Everyone has a right to post, good, bad, or ugly; but not everyone has to be read if you find their posts tendentious.  And that goes the other way too; for the people who find the Shawpologists too polyanna, you don’t have to read us.

BC

Evidently, that's not the case. Some people don't have the "right" to post, good, bad or ugly. As I'm now apparently unbanned and can post, I'm still curious why I was banned in the first place and was provided no explanation. I even reached out privately to an admin for an explanation, and disappointingly, he didn't give me the courtesy of a reply. What a bummer from a Stanford guy. . . .