[Sabertooth]

For the record, I did NOT advocate political violence against any politician in that post. I advocated the killing of a snake. However, due to unclear terminology on my part, a reasonable person could have construed the post as being threatening in nature to a politician, thus it was pulled. I apologized on that thread for posting it.

You said "this wall eyed" snake."

You were referring to McClintock, no question about it, and advocating, even if in jest, violence gainst him.

I'm torn though... Should anyone with your gift for understatement ever be banned?

Funny thing is, my #847 quoting you got pulled. Ain't that priceless?

That's the cost of inconsistency.

[Fred Mertz]

You're treading on thin ice, dude. The truth hurts here lately.

[strela]

Funny thing is, my #847 quoting you got pulled. Ain't that priceless?

I find it even more interesting that you saved that material before it got pulled by the mods. It couldn't have been up too long. Do you save all of my posts, Saber? Are you making a dossier on me?

[Jim Robinson]

Life is so unfair. Inconsistant too.

[Dales]

Nobody is perfect.

I just woke up, and sat down, and saw this. I have no idea of the context yet, but I will, right now. And if I think something wasn't fair and balanced, then I'll take care of it.

That is how things work.

But it is helpful to consider the way things work. An abuse report comes in that says:

Regarding #847

Material in post in another thread previously deleted by Admin Moderator re-introduced into this thread

The moderator looks, and sees such a post. Yep, someone reposted a pulled quote. Down it came.

Meanwhile, Jim is reading this thread. Perhaps you think that user should be banned. But that decision would be made by Jim, not by us. He's asked us to him handle banning questions of established members, except in the most egregious of cases (which would be where someone suddenly loses it).

If you want total consistency from us, the best you will get from me is an admission that while it is a goal we strive for, we'll probably never get complete consistency. The fact that each of us has our own style means there will be some inconsistency. The fact that each of is not a perfect logic machine means there will be some inconsistency. The fact that we learn, from our mistakes and from those of others, means there will be some inconsistency. The fact that we see some things and not others means there will be some inconsistency.

And the fact that we will make mistakes or bad decisions means there will be some inconsistency.

We try to keep it at a minimum. How well we do, everyone will have to decide for themselves. Nature of the beast. And those who don't like us or who think we suck, are likely to try to convince people. Also nature of the beast.

You're a good man, Sabertooth. You always try to be fair, from what I have seen. Your concerns are not falling on deaf ears.

Regards