"So why do you call SI a class act for banning someone while you were all over my case for kicking the same person off Suite101?"
I didn't call SI a class act for banning that person. I called them "more of a class act" because of what I've seen in the past. As you know, I've been a member of SI for many years.
I can only speculate on what Fish got banned for here, because there were posts that got deleted before I got a chance to see them, so I am not in a position to give an opinion on his banning. As for being on your case, my recollection is that was in reference to Dija, and your board management practices in general, not Fish specifically.
"Some get 'time outs' or will be told to post with their real names after proving who they are since we don't want legal liability for their slanderous attacks, but you seem to give SI a pass for what you've condemned me for. Maybe you were wrong, eh? Now you seem to admit that you have to 'clean up your rhetoric' to stay here... so why do you hold Suite101 to a higher standard?"
As I said, I didn't see what Fish was banned for here, but from what I've seen in the past, SI has been impartial in their management of their boards. I haven't seen impartiality in the way you manage your boards. (All IMO, of course.)
BTW, you misquoted me. If you want to paraphrase what I say, please leave out the quotation marks. I said I was toning down my rhetoric, not cleaning it up. I don't think there was anything dirty about my rhetoric on any board. Yahoo seems to let people attack each other, and I'm sure that I sometimes gave as good as I got. It wouldn't surprise me to see that this wouldn't fly here, but if what I've seen in the past is any indication, at least we can expect that SI will be impartial in their enforcement. |
