Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...
Ah...I see you did consider my submission.
No it was not relevant to anything on this board.
You would have to provide the "attacks" for clarification. For example, to say you seem to have trouble understanding what is posted is not an attack but an observation. Now if one had been called 'stupid' because of their inability to comprehend the posting, that would be an attack and would not be acceptable.
But insinuation and generalization are fine. For example, if I said that people who shoot snakes with pot-metal pistols are provincial idiots, that would be okay...since I didn't mention any specific pot metal pistol totin' snake shooter.
Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense. Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.
No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.
So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.
Seriously Wayne...are you that fond of wallowing in relativism?
See another case of less than honest presentation. Notice the context of the questions and the false claims you have made?
Quote: So it isn't a rule...it's a whim
If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?
Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.
. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.
No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense
. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.[/quote]
Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.