Quote from: cryptodevil on February 26, 2016, 10:47:39 AM

Personally I find the arguments and faux-outrage of those of less-than-honest nature, when it comes to being marked as having a less-than-honest nature, utterly fallacious.

Just as much as nobody is here to stop them doing whatever they wish to do in their libertarian utopia, we are equally as entitled to objectively mark them as evidently having demonstrated a less-than-honest nature.

We're not stopping them, we're simply communicating to others the facts of their past behaviour.

It's called consequence, people.

If you read the manner that these two post you will see they both come at the issue in exactly the same manner.
Now a few say they are the same person and can see how that logic applies due to the obvious issues they have with reading between the lines.
If the way they have come at this thread and threads based around the same topic are of any evidence it is bad for the forum.
All anyone needs to do is look through these posts and see they often misunderstand what is being said or stated to them and they still
want people to be forced to explain themselves through private message.
If trusted accounts are stooping to harassing members in pm land,then why would they be trusted in the first place?
This idea that what they is doing is honorable and good,is just presuming that the intent is honest. Since no one knows,it should be scrutinzed a little more then open attacks on the community.

I also do not see a open discussion on this topic,rather a few stating this is how it is going to be and we should all except it.
Is that really how we want to run things here,by letting a few people take the reins and push their mandate on the rest of us?

This topic has turned into a wall since hardly any new voices are coming in and speaking their minds. Its pretty clear where those of us active in these threads stand. Would be nice to see others speak up.