I will stop posting in this topic, I've been warned for 'insulting' Tom for changing Gustav's name in Tom's post, with Tom's name in this post. (I think, this is it since I can't see what post I have been warned for)
So, I assume you read the parts about fanatical devotion, emotional reactions, over-reacting and disregard for the impact of ones actions, but you can not see the connection?
I'm sorry, Gustav. For the past weeks you have come out in many topics and you consistently oppose anything I say, usually with one-liners. I'm not in the mood of wasting a lengthy explanation. I do see a strong connection, with the zeal and blindness we are talking about here springing from the same source.
From this I can presume, it's okay for Tom stonewall people out of a discussion by implying they are blinded by zeal, but not ok when you do the same for Tom. If it's considerd insulting for me to imply this for Tom, why is it ok for Tom to do the same?
"No Gustav, you can't be part of this conversationg because you are crazy?" I don't know Gustav at all, but thought the post was uncalled for, hence mine.
I haven't insulted anyone in this entire thread, and have pretty much stopped posting since it's been clear Tom won't change his views, whereas I have consistently seen Tom slandering others, most notably in the deleted posts where he calls all forum-goers loner-nerds pretty much acting like someone who knows there are no consequences for his own actions.
Guilty as charged, and not apologizing.
If someone makes up an arbitrary rule in an open communication, other parties are under no obligation to honour it. It takes consent and consensus for that to happen. Obviously, there was no such consensus.
Please post your reply without using the letter "e".
I understand that forum-discussions can get heated, but the double standards have achieved what the closing of the locals haven't, make me not want to come to the forums. It's ironic people keep referring to this thread to 'proove their point' about the forum being bad, when this is the first thread I have seen which has this kind of behaviour.
