Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 1:35 am
Man, your analogies are as over the top as Ajax’s.
You're doing your "both sides are equal" thing again. Maybe you feel like you have to do this all the time to be a good moderator, I don't know.
This isn’t Neuremberg, War criminals were prosecuted because they committed war crimes, not because they were Nazis, and Ajax isn’t war criminal.
Of course, being a war criminal wasn't the point. Just ask yourself this question. Is there ever a time when a Nazi can be called a Nazi without it being a "personal attack"? Being associated with white supremacy isn't just an accident. It was a conscious choice ajax made and when he was outed for it he initially lied about it and then disappeared from the forum for a while. He knew at that point his background meant he had absolutely zero credibility, especially when speaking on the racial topics that consume him. If he was truly repentant, and truly cared so much about being lumped in with racists, then he'd change his moniker and profile pic.
They only reason you keep bringing up posts made over a decade ago on another site is to attack who Ajax is as a person. For you to pretend it is anything other than a personal attack is disingenuous.
You're literally doing what you just criticized Doc of doing. You accused him of trying to read Ajax's mind, whereas you have no problem doing that with me by insisting not only that my intentions are malicious, but also denying me the right to set the record straight, otherwise I'm just being "disingenuous." As I've stated, it isn't a "personal attack" to bring up someone's own words or actions from the past. You're a lawyer for crying out loud, so you of all people here know how that discredits someone. Discrediting a witness on the stand for their obvious bias isn't a "personal attack."
One of the two necessary components of “personal attack” is that it must be personal. Ajax’s presence here is not “personal.” Comments that he makes that are not about or directed at you are not “personal.” Being offended at posts he made 10 years ago or a general racist comment he makes does not magically transform posts not about or directed at Kevin Graham into personal attacks on Kevin Graham.
At least not in the holy book of Res Ipsa.
There was some back and forth on this issue between EA and I. To my knowledge, Shades never weighed in. EA and I agreed on the vast majority of Decisions. But his argument that true statements can never be personal attacks is not supported by the rule of the the plain meaning of the words personal and attack. This is an issue the mod team has discussed, and we’re not going to perpetuate an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Shades never weighed in probably because Shades doesn't have a problem with it. I mean you guys didn't do crap after some folks here were mocking me over a surgical procedure I had done a few years ago. The likely reason? Because it was information I had willingly shared with the forum. I was told by someone, maybe it was Shades, that this was the reason why subgenius, Ajax, mike, etc were allowed to mock me for it. And having surgery does nothing to reduce my credibility on any given subject. It was clearly nothing but a personal attack and you guys just sat idly by and let it happen.
Far from getting special treatment, it seems the rules actually change when Kevin Graham starts to use those same rules that were used against him for years.