I find Matthew's response to be inconsitent of an independant impartial moderator.Originally Posted by matthew
He has in the past closed a thread I started based on his personal view:
Even though the back yard is for open discussion which others were participating in.
As was the case with:
Re my first infraction I apologised in the thread unreservedly to ALL members, I aplogised to the members involved via PM, I apologised to the forum moderators by PM to which I received no acknowledgement.
Re the latest infraction I did not in my opinion use bad lanuage. The user inquestion referred to the topic of the plunger happening to me. Further he decided to insult me and I responded.
You will see for the most part my threads are of humour and attempts to bring happiness/smiles to otherwise dull days.
Placing this new infraction on me which I see to be never expiring means that all my posts from now on will be verified prior to posting. This in itself is a formof censorship which in my opinion Matthew will abuse.
I fully understand you will all as moderators take Matthews side.
I understand his reasons for giving me the infraction, I do not understand now why all my posts need to be vetted first?
I find Matthews response in 2. above to be rude and in a tone not befitting an impartial moderator.
I find Matthews response in 3. to be out of order and totally injust especially with the regard to kicking a child. It is an analogy which I feel is totally out of place.
I accept the infraction, I do not accept that all my posts now require vetting.
Especially as I made a point of apologising to all concerned re my first infraction.
But I expect this to fall on deaf ears, which is a real shame!