You think there could have been some individuals that were taking it farther that just reporting? Like to a point they were lobbying for his ban just because they didn't like his opinions. Someones that had an agenda to get him banned? Yes it was Paul's decision and I'll respect that, its those that were hiding behind the scenes and working to get him banned just because they didnt like his opinions. Be intresting if they stop there.
That wasn't the case at all. Mr Paul defined what he wanted and the results were as stated, in fact, his wishes were trampled on deliberately over and over again.
Mr Paul isnt swayed like that. He sees for himself the intent of comments and makes his own decisions. Its easily discernable what the intent is from someone's words.
Actually, Mr Paul has been quite patient for a long time on with some issues. So have the mods.
With all due respect, Ms. Sharon, it was not a one way street. For years I have seen where multiple people would jump on BC just for posting a well-thought-out, factual post, just because it did not align with their political viewpoints. They would team up on him until he would react, and then as soon as he did, they would start calling for him to be removed from the site. Ridiculous behavior, imo. In fact, until I began noticing that behavior, I did not like BC myself. But when I looked at the reasons why I did not, I realized it was just because I often did not like what he had to say politically. And when I looked at that further, I realized that quite often, the things he was saying that I did not like, he was correct about.
So, it got to where when BC posted something I did not agree with, I would need to look into the issue. Sometimes he was right, and I would have to concede that he was. Oftentimes though I still felt he was wrong, and then I would reply to him with a researched and thought out reply as to why I felt he was wrong. It would have been a lot easier to just call him names and say that he shouldn't be allowed to post because I don't agree with him, though....which is by far what most choose to do. That is sad.
Did BC's post from yesterday break rules? Yes it did. But imo, barely. His post had a slight anti-Jewish tilt towards it, but it wasn't blatant, far less so than other posts that are on this forum right this moment. And while it was clear he was not a fan of the President, I also saw no outright bashing of the man. His post from yesterday may well have warranted a ban, but a life ban? Seems more than a bit excessive to me. I am hopeful that once the war ends and tempers simmer down some, Paul might reconsider the permanency of the ban, as he has for other members such as jbyrd. I believe the loss of BC is a net negative for the site as a whole.
![[Linked Image]](https://trapperman.com/forum/attachments/usergals/2026/05/full-11798-292370-1abd15d5_de38_4f03_b909_20e9b9a03ede.png)
