Robin Rodriguez5 said:Chill out—nobody besides you actually said anyone was small-minded; that’s just something you made up.
They didn't say it directly, they said it indirectly. And yeah, it's my interpretation—but I laid out the logic in my opening post. The real issue here is that you don't care about arguments unless they line up perfectly with what you already believe. To you, "objectivity" is clearly just a theoretical concept, to put it mildly.
And no, calling for someone to lose their business capacity isn't quite the same thing as calling a banker a bottom-feeder.
We can agree on that much. Calling a banker a bottom-feeder isn't exactly a "heavy insult," let alone worth a 500-point penalty (???)—it's more of a condescending jab that's a far cry from labeling someone "small-minded."
Just a reminder: you've called for bankers to be thrown in jail countless times. I think you've said plenty of things along those lines yourself.
Yeah, so? That’s my opinion, considering the fallout caused by greedy bankers who were allowed to run wild (and still do) at the expense of countless American citizens. You clearly have no clue how much damage
their products caused when they weren't supposed to be on the market in the first place. So many families went broke because of their greed. Besides,
in Iceland, those bankers actually ended up behind bars. Iceland moved forward, but where are we?
Are we just not allowed to criticize bankers here? What is this, a banking forum? If it is, please let us know so we can pack up and leave.
Look, I stand by the idea that anyone breaking the law should face the consequences. You disagree? Please, tell me. If you actually think otherwise, then sorry, but you're a danger to society and the country.
You've never even been flagged for something like that.
How can you sit there and spout such blatant lies?
This "business capability" nonsense from Alexander Thompson is on the same level as you trying to throw bankers in jail.
That says everything I need to know about you. You're clearly just defending bankers—defending people who broke the law and are still trying to do it. And what do we call people who defend lawbreakers? How does a rule-of-law nation deal with them?
Neither one of you got a warning for posts like that—though honestly, I’d prefer if we just didn't have those kinds of posts at all, regardless of which side they're coming from.
That's not true—I got penalized while he didn't. The standards here are totally inconsistent.
As for a permanent ban for Alexander Thompson, he definitely hasn't earned it yet. He's picked up quite a few warnings so far—three, including one from me. He's been banned before, too, but in my opinion, it's not enough for a permanent ban just yet. We'll see how things play out down the road.
So, in your book, he’s never going to get a permanent ban? Not even when he's blatantly insulting a huge chunk of America?
And please, enlighten me—what exactly does that legendary "change your writing style" line mean?
What kind of writing style am I supposed to adopt to satisfy you? Should I be writing little poems about how wonderful and lovely everyone who breaks the law is? Maybe write like Alexander Thompson? And where, exactly, in the site rules can I find an instruction regarding "writing style"?
If this torture and the insults from certain users—and the fact that you moderators just tolerate it—doesn't stop, I'm reaching out to the Anti-Euro Association. I'll have their legal team step in to shut down this defamation and the public shaming of members. It seems someone needs a good reminder that while this Forum might be someone's private playground, the space it operates in certainly isn't.
