Ian; threatening to Not Hold Back - are we in a discussion board or a Rambo film, or what 
?
There's a lot of innuendo and insult in your post as it is.
Feel free to criticize anything at all of mine, but do it in a civilized manner. Or people might get the idea that you are just suppressing criticism
. I expected a bad reaction, been here before.
I don't believe I have cast any aspersions; unless telling someone that something they said is wrong is an example.
Ian I'm not sure you have grasped the details about which you are sounding off.
I expressed my concern, politely, about your moderation - ie, that you endorsed an abusive outburst/personal attack by a senior official on a member, supporting it even.
On a second occasion instead of stepping in to restrain a derisory post, you joined in.
You can't be unaware of this 'moderator conflict', because I mentioned it before.
I don't think you understand the role of moderator. It is not to support the view that you hold personally, or support other moderators that 'go off on one'.
And what the f-pawn is this:
"In my opinion People are afraid to post because you will have a go at them."
It's childish to cast aspersions, and on no basis too - and frankly unbelievable, coming from a moderator!?
I'll also reply to this, on the general principle that you seem to want to deflect away from the substance:
"You try and engage with Alex McFarlane and others and when you are corrected by Alex and several others, several times, you either ignore them or move on to something else."
Followed it all, did you? No one else commented on the detail. Which is here, also posts by Alex.
(Post #85, 87, 90, 95, ... #107, 115. The last one might be enough to give the gist)
The upshot of this, I argued painstakingly, was that the 2016 Muir-Neave motion was correct in all it's forms (not incompetent or badly worded at all), and only became problematic later because of confusion creeping in and the lack of proper minute of the motion. (And it would seem, a willingness expressed that MT was eligible, or should be)
And it could not imply MT was eligible. Details in posts.
Does the fact of different officials, all citing each other without looking at the detail, turn black into white?
I wish to give credit to Alex McF. Jumps in and stays in - but never gets personal.
?There's a lot of innuendo and insult in your post as it is.
Feel free to criticize anything at all of mine, but do it in a civilized manner. Or people might get the idea that you are just suppressing criticism
. I expected a bad reaction, been here before. I don't believe I have cast any aspersions; unless telling someone that something they said is wrong is an example.
Ian I'm not sure you have grasped the details about which you are sounding off.
I expressed my concern, politely, about your moderation - ie, that you endorsed an abusive outburst/personal attack by a senior official on a member, supporting it even.
On a second occasion instead of stepping in to restrain a derisory post, you joined in.
You can't be unaware of this 'moderator conflict', because I mentioned it before.
I don't think you understand the role of moderator. It is not to support the view that you hold personally, or support other moderators that 'go off on one'.
And what the f-pawn is this:
"In my opinion People are afraid to post because you will have a go at them."
It's childish to cast aspersions, and on no basis too - and frankly unbelievable, coming from a moderator!?
I'll also reply to this, on the general principle that you seem to want to deflect away from the substance:
"You try and engage with Alex McFarlane and others and when you are corrected by Alex and several others, several times, you either ignore them or move on to something else."
Followed it all, did you? No one else commented on the detail. Which is here, also posts by Alex.
(Post #85, 87, 90, 95, ... #107, 115. The last one might be enough to give the gist)
The upshot of this, I argued painstakingly, was that the 2016 Muir-Neave motion was correct in all it's forms (not incompetent or badly worded at all), and only became problematic later because of confusion creeping in and the lack of proper minute of the motion. (And it would seem, a willingness expressed that MT was eligible, or should be)
And it could not imply MT was eligible. Details in posts.
Does the fact of different officials, all citing each other without looking at the detail, turn black into white?
I wish to give credit to Alex McF. Jumps in and stays in - but never gets personal.