Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleopatra
George,
Personally I don't think anybody should be banned for disbelieving somebody's post but as that is the (very strange) rules I think it should not have been you that was banned. I have read the thread in question and Brittanist, Steve Fowler and Ranter should have been banned, not you!
I have had the same problem with Brittanist on another thread, I too was called a troll. It would seem that the admin or (some) moderators would have more to lose if they banned somebody with over 20,000 posts than someone who only joined in January. It's a bit like the local pub; if a regular causes a fight with a newcomer it's more likely that the newcomer will be banned as they would not be spending as much per week.
|
Thanks for that, but I have to say I disagree with you. I don't think Ranter deserves any censure, you just need to see post 6 in this thread to see that he has a good character. Sure we don't agree but I don't think he has been abusive at all, certainly not that I recall. The same goes for Steve Fowler.
What I do think is out of order is conducting a debate by simply claiming that the other person is making up details about their personal situation, ignoring the actual debate and then refusing to withdraw these remarks when proved wrong. Even so, I don't think it should be grounds for a ban because it is far better to allow them to continue making themselves look foolish and petty.