Oh my, I go out all day and come back to read these last few pages and so I'm genuinely grateful to Jim, Ad [Bolter] etc for explaining the fact I'm not that fickle or arbitrary when it comes to banning people.
Whereas barnett bans people and deletes posts without warning and without any chance of retraction, I need provoking and as Jim suggests, I don't like agenda-ridden posters who are just here to cause trouble or stir things up.
Bolter also added that at any time, any of my mods will put me right if I've over-reacted or was just plain wrong and in such cases, I will reverse whatever it is I've fuhk'd up, and I've fuhk'd up many, many times.
I can only do this if I trust my mods/friends 100% . … in that sense I'm really lucky to have these guys looking out for me.
And please, please don't do a disservice in thinking these guys do it for their own ends or because of some blind sycophantic loyalty, they will tell me I'm wrong because it's the right thing to do and of course, as friends, they don't wanna let me make a complete dik of myself.
It is true to say that if I have banned someone, I more than likely not like them but I'm afraid that's not the sole reason they've been shown the door, there's always other reasons lurking below the surface.
In mothmann' s case, he has history, he pushes envelopes, I don't like people who do that for the sake of it hence the reason I don't like him.
And of course as has been noted, whilst mothmann was declaring complete impartiality, the fact he played on a barnett sponsored team may go some way in explaining his point of view.
He left that little detail out of it for some reason :/
Thanks guys Jimbo & Ad
