| I certainly think that Christopher has the wrong attitude. Laz stipulated the grounds which he felt would permit unbanning. He did not stipulate all possible grounds for changing his mind, and, in fact, changed his mind, and banned Chris anew. Since Chris loses nothing (at worst, there is a return to the status quo ante), and since there should not have been a need for negotiating his cessation of harassment of Poet, anyway, there is nothing much to complain about, except, perhaps, that Laz was too harsh. The idea of making a contractual case out of it is laughable. The real analogy is this: Laz didn't want to invite Chris to his party. Chris said that he would not do thus and such, and coaxed an invitation. When at the party, something made Laz mad, and he made Chris leave. At worst, Laz was rude, he was neither a liar nor did he break a contract........ |
