This is my third and final installment of the "factor series" (see previous ones here and here) where prejudicial feelings are used as a justification to go after people whose political views or opinions that do not line up with their supposedly prevailing attitudes. In short, acting out of sheer deaf madness in moments of temporary insanity. But read on further and I'm sure you'll get a big laugh out of this one!
Here it goes.
Not too long ago I got a ban notice saying that my ban would last 4 days but it ended up lasting only one day (they owe me 1 day of no access!) after a moderator (who doesn't like me for my political beliefs and opinions, a fact) realized the folly of banning me over something that was really funny in the first place. Right then and there I knew it was all about the person's own political feelings getting hurt and nothing about keeping things "neutral" (if there is such a thing in AD) while as a moderator.
Here's my cropped banned letter with the original reason why I was banned just to save space.
This was the result of me putting a picture of a cat dressed up as an al-Qaeda suicide bomber in the jokes section. Yuk yuk. Only this person didn't have any sense of humor, obviously. The ban only lasted less than 24 hours which I'm sure others higher up had to convince this person just how stupid it was and and how transparent the actions were by going after me so quickly, and without thinking, too.
Here's the "offensive" picture that I posted along with some notes.
Finished laughing?
Then came *TWO* reasons explaining why I was banned for putting an "offensive" picture of a suicide bomber cat in the Jokes and Funny Stories section. But in less than 24 hours the 4-day ban was rescinded and I got this PM letter. This person asked why I put the picture up. I responded,
Here it goes.
Not too long ago I got a ban notice saying that my ban would last 4 days but it ended up lasting only one day (they owe me 1 day of no access!) after a moderator (who doesn't like me for my political beliefs and opinions, a fact) realized the folly of banning me over something that was really funny in the first place. Right then and there I knew it was all about the person's own political feelings getting hurt and nothing about keeping things "neutral" (if there is such a thing in AD) while as a moderator.
Here's my cropped banned letter with the original reason why I was banned just to save space.
This was the result of me putting a picture of a cat dressed up as an al-Qaeda suicide bomber in the jokes section. Yuk yuk. Only this person didn't have any sense of humor, obviously. The ban only lasted less than 24 hours which I'm sure others higher up had to convince this person just how stupid it was and and how transparent the actions were by going after me so quickly, and without thinking, too.
Here's the "offensive" picture that I posted along with some notes.
Finished laughing?
Then came *TWO* reasons explaining why I was banned for putting an "offensive" picture of a suicide bomber cat in the Jokes and Funny Stories section. But in less than 24 hours the 4-day ban was rescinded and I got this PM letter. This person asked why I put the picture up. I responded,
"Because it was funny. Live a little."
Still laughing?
I'm not done.
Two weeks earlier (I didn't even know the same suicide cat bomber picture was posted there, too!) the same suicide cat bomber picture was found in the pets section of AD. Go to this link here and you'll see it before your very own eyes. Don't worry. I made a screen capture and an html copy of it just in case. See what the commenter said below about the 72-virgins post -picture joke? Shouldn't that comment be "offensive," too? And what about the suicide bomber cat picture? Is it that offensive? How come that poster never got banned? Do you see anybody in that thread howling with outrage?
But really, the first time I saw that picture it was in Deafreedom. I thought it was hilarious and so I copied and pasted it in AD in the jokes section. As I found out, laughingly so, somebody certainly didn't find the picture amusing. But this whole "banning thing" was a complete joke in of itself worthy to have it's own jokes section.
This wank, S*blesc**t, (in a forum that claim to be politically neutral, hah!) seriously needs to address his own personal issues against me and leave the proper and professional moderating duties to those who know how to do them correctly.
I'm not done.
Two weeks earlier (I didn't even know the same suicide cat bomber picture was posted there, too!) the same suicide cat bomber picture was found in the pets section of AD. Go to this link here and you'll see it before your very own eyes. Don't worry. I made a screen capture and an html copy of it just in case. See what the commenter said below about the 72-virgins post -picture joke? Shouldn't that comment be "offensive," too? And what about the suicide bomber cat picture? Is it that offensive? How come that poster never got banned? Do you see anybody in that thread howling with outrage?
But really, the first time I saw that picture it was in Deafreedom. I thought it was hilarious and so I copied and pasted it in AD in the jokes section. As I found out, laughingly so, somebody certainly didn't find the picture amusing. But this whole "banning thing" was a complete joke in of itself worthy to have it's own jokes section.
This wank, S*blesc**t, (in a forum that claim to be politically neutral, hah!) seriously needs to address his own personal issues against me and leave the proper and professional moderating duties to those who know how to do them correctly.
