Nice avoidance. Kind of arrogant don't you think?
Aren't you a "pastor"?
The question was simple, either "BigMack's" insult meets your criteria of being a "personal attack" or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Are you saying that if we don't like dishonest dealing then we should go elsewhere?
But my questions are serious.
Personally, I couldn't care less if I'm flamed or attacked. Personal attacks do not affect me in the least.
However, I am seeing posts with legitimate questions being pulled and I am seeing people like Ephesians210 being suspended when I couldn't see anything ban-worthy in the posts he made leading up to his supsention.
Again, I am not complaining about abusive posts NOT being pulled.
What I am concerned with is the posts that contain no attack or flames being pulled.
In this country, the judicial system by design is biased towards the offender. The founders of this country wanted to limit the chances that the innocent would be found guilty. Therefore, they intentionally set up a system where the, in reality, guilty might just be found "not guilty".
In that context, I fail to see how pulling good, legitimate posts and how censoring or banishing legitimate, serious posters furthers the good name of FreeRepublic.
Jean