Trapdog, when a moderator moves or reports a post, do you call him a "Karen" and say he "tattled"?

I think he got himself banned by crapping all over Paul's rules - over and over again. I'm not sure who got rid of his posts yesterday, but ultimately it was Paul.

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 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.

No doubt in my mind Paul his been very patient with some of us

It wasn't because he had differing opinions politically, Angela. It was other very obvious statements that Mr Paul decided were out of line. They were comments that went way out from mere difference of views given in respect. Personal.

I won't rehash specifics , but it came under the intent of "using nuanced stuff that makes the point but doesn't cross any lines".

Even then, he went way beyond that .

It was not simply different views .

What happened now?

I miss all the fun.

Perhaps it was meant the way some chose to take it. Or maybe it was just a generalization. I wish he'd have used the name Prometheus or Einstein instead and maybe then we'd not be having this conversation. Even so, seems fairly mild as far as insults go. Savell can sling out better insults than that even when he's on the N/A beer, LOL.

I suppose the perceived "mildness" of an insult depends on where the barrel is aiming.

Mr Paul sees that clearly.

As to being obvious in accusation, not just generalization, take that up with Patrice and Zim.

Well, that is true. Some folks have very thin skin.

Patrice and Zim and others are anything but thin skinned. You know this well.

Others are not to blame . Only the one instigating false accusations of another's character.

Respectfully, Angela.

We are doing a lot of speaking for Mr Paul. No disrespect meant towards Paul

What did he post that was a false accusation?

"Like sand in a hour glass..."

.

How did I get the ignominious honour of headlining this stuff?

Your the perfect mascot as much as u enjoy a little friendly head butting

The "sand " is about gone, Dave.

Angela, that question sounds just like the style of baiting someone else is famed for using.

I will not stoop.

Yes Sir, when someone speaks highly of you and your thoughts, that is a compliment.

Boco. Keep making those nice fox hats please. I still recall the one you made using all the contrasting colours of the dark legs, white underparts, and bright red. I have never seen a hat like that since.

I mean if the guy wasn't across the line he was sure on it and more than once. Enough so that I have read several different threads on the topic and have seen where Yote was in there defending him too. She must be a good friend sticking up for her boy. I remember when I was in school and would get in trouble reporting that I hadn't done anything my dad would say well this is for one of the times you didn't get caught then. Play with fire. I'm guessing he's not really wondering why he got the boot... Besides... if Marty can make a comeback, lets see what the guy is made of. lol.

You got me lost, Ms. Sharon. I don't know why you think I am baiting, or who I remind you of.

On the post that I saw, the one that you replied to just before it got deleted, BC said, in essence, that you did not have to be a genius to know that people on here report you for stating beliefs that go against their own. In place of genius, he used the name of an honor society that someone on here happens to be a member of. Was that an intentional dig? Maybe. Probably, even. But we'll never know as BC is not here to tell us.

But I do not see how any of that supports your claim of BC making false allegations.

BC could never comment on anything without a jab at Trump or his supporters, it got old.