Problem with current affairs

Making false claims (one of them in his first two posts, one in PM) is 'inconsistent' with the truth. Making arbitrary decisions about what can be posted on threads and proceeding to warn people is 'inconsistent' modding. It's all been laid out by a 'significant' number of posters blanch.

Of course hypocritical you would be all over those claims looking for back-up proof if they were made against you. Busted again.

Once again your high moral ground grandstanding exposed.

Why don't you put me on ignore?

And I'll ask again...who asked you for your opinion? I certainly didn't and neither did the OP.

Yet you kept badgering me for my opinion of it, when I was referencing you entire posting here...a blatant attempt to make the thread about me and Brucie. As Brucie has adequately pointed out, THAT IS NOT what the thread is about - the OP again here for you to review.

As soon as the seventh and eighth word of that OP, his agenda becomes clear.

I have previously explained twice how the OP could have been worded and how he could possibly have had near unanimous support. Instead, he did the usual go off on one rant about all and sundry.

As for asking for opinions, who asked the OP for his opinion on the subject? I certainly didn't need to see his incoherent rant, but I still respect his right to put forward his opinion.

That's your opinion.

Fine. Anything else?

Whats going on, if its so obvious?

Reading between the lines of some posters are dreaming up great fiction. No proof mind.

What you all don't seem to understand is that a forum has to have moderators and admins to enforce rules. When they make a ruling, it is up to those unhappy with it to prove they are wrong. Simple as.

If you have been found guilty in a court, the onus in any appeal is to prove your innocence, or to prove there was a flaw in the conviction.

That is where we currently stand. The admin has made a ruling. Francie is disputing the ruling, but won't put up any evidence to challenge it.

You are normally found guilty in court based on evidence. In order to be found guilty they have to prove you are guilty. What happened here is Beasty made a statement with no proof, and you expect the people he accused of having to prove that false.

There is no way for Francie or Brucie to prove the statement is false.

Absolutely stoking the fire and as I pointed out, already being passed off as fact by @markodaly

He knew exactly what he was doing as he did in the separate allegation he made about me and others in PM.

This is not a court, this is a discussion board. An Admin makes a ruling, to challenge it you have to demonstrate it is false or based on spurious grounds.

There was plenty of evidence adduced by Beasty in his post. One aspect of it has been challenged, but even if the challenge was correct, it was only a minor aspect of the case against the two lads.

I didn't see a single post disagreeing with the notion that we need more mods. Some expressing how difficult if might be to get mods because of the behaviour of certain posters, but not disputing the general notion.

You brought up the court reference.

You keep avoiding answering the question. How could Brucie or Francie prove the statement is false. Normally an admin makes a decision based on something. IN this case he says its a feeling. How can you prove that a feeling is false?