You got proof? Produce it.
I can't prove it true or false. Maybe SI Admin could. I doubt that they keep that kind of audit trail.
I would never accuse anyone of being a liar on circumstantial evidence and inference. I would not accuse anyone of being a stalker or a pervert, either, as long as there were alternative, more generous, ways to interpret the situation. This is what I know for sure about this incident.
I had been after X for quite some time to get her posting on SMBR rather than Beanies. I had all but given up when, just after the resumption of service, I saw her bantering with Marie. Almost immediately, I received a PM from X telling me that she had been banned. Apparently, she had sent one to Thames, too, who was also around at the time, because he posted to you to bring her back. I posted, too, but my message was more subtle. A while later, she was back. So that is what I know for sure.
At the time, I didn't question that she had been banned, given what I knew of your feelings about her. From the tone of her post it was clear that she wasn't kidding and, at that point in time, right after she had decided to join us, there would have been no point in her faking it. Her messages to me were entirely believable. There's no doubt in my mind that she thought she was banned.
I was surprised later when you denied banning her. The only other explanations I can think of is some hiccough related to SI's technical problems that day or that she had accidentally tried to post on RWET, where she really was banned, and hadn't realized it. Now, lots of uncomplimentary things are said about X, but I don't think anyone thinks she is that stupid. So I'm left with either an SI computer problem or a banning.
That's what I know. And what I conclude from what I know. |
