This was a curious and surprising offer.
Jim Rob, I've just gotta ask you, does Cal have the authority to make such an offer? Was she speaking for you, or only herself?
Not that I am the least bit interested in being singled out to receive some kind of blanket immunity from banishment, mind you. As I told Cal above, I want to be held accountable just like everyone else to the original posting rules I first signed up for -- no racism, no personal attacks (provided of course, that the mere expression of a differing opinion is not regarded as a personal attack), no spam, etc. This is as it should be. I've never had a problem with your original vision. In fact, I've always thought it supremely visionary and ideal, which explains why I became an enthusiastic FReeper in the first place.
The moderators made a judgement call IMHO partially based upon a misinterpretation of Jim's intent
"We have been assured, over and over and over again, that the moderators do not ever misinterpret Jim's intent to suit their own whims or agenda, so you have to be mistaken. A thing like that is impossible…so we've been told." - 2700 posted by Scuttlebutt
To: Scuttlebutt
With the notable exception of myself, human beings make mistakes. - 2710 - John R -
========================================
We seem to be making progress here. -- If mistakes have been made, and now CAL is authorized to offer general protection from bans in exchange for oaths to follow the rules, then the next step is clear.
Publish the rules, and enforce them impartially, in an open accountable fashion.
1. You are a racist.
2. You assault other posters with lies.
3. You spam the place with more IDs than exsquirrel.
Take RightOnline's advise...see a therapist about your rate of self-absorbtion...you are reaching the critical level and will only become anti-matter instead of no matter.
Hoppa dat hepps ya heeps.