|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 11:07:44 GMT
You are still playing Dungeons and Dragons rather than dealing with the pragmatic objection that the discretion to decide whether the pre-agreed facts of an election matter to the result, makes the elections and their pre-agreed facts, moot. A contract between two parties does not serve the same purpose as an election and a proper choice is not the same thing in every context. You can't, for assistance, claim the price of a haircut back because someone mislead you about how popular it would make with the gals. In an election, a proper choice means there can be no higher level discretion in nullifying or countermanding the pre-agreed fact/s of the election, because the purpose of an election is to decide who people with the higher discretion are and what these people do. Looks like you're conflating facts and opinions again. You also appear to be including predictions (how popular it will make you with the girls). You need to pay more attention. Your silly rabbit hole was ignored. Here is is again - The discretion to overrule the pre-agreed salient facts of an election, renders the election itself moot - it defies its purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 11, 2023 11:08:39 GMT
I have already told you how moderation decisions are reached. If you have a complaint then please contact Admin. No, you haven't. I'm not saying you have to tell us, but it would be very helpful to us if you did. I mean, you closed down a thread recently because of a few exchanged insults. Those insults had nothing to do with the OP - she wasn't involved in any way. Yet, you closed her thread because I and another member weren't exactly being courteous to each other. Yet, your first post in this thread was in exactly the same mould as those exchanges. Can you see the problem there, Doc? You lock a thread for insulting conduct and then do exactly the same thing in this thread.Insulting the Remainer fantasy's of the Indy is not against the rules of the forum. If you disagree with a post then report it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 11:09:37 GMT
Looks like you're conflating facts and opinions again. You also appear to be including predictions (how popular it will make you with the girls). You need to pay more attention. Your silly rabbit hole was ignored. Here is is again - The discretion to overrule the pre-agreed salient facts of an election, renders the election itself moot - it defies its purpose.
Okay, maybe you could explain the sentence in bold above in plain English? What on earth do you mean by 'pre-agreed salient facts of an election'? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 11:16:16 GMT
No, you haven't. I'm not saying you have to tell us, but it would be very helpful to us if you did. I mean, you closed down a thread recently because of a few exchanged insults. Those insults had nothing to do with the OP - she wasn't involved in any way. Yet, you closed her thread because I and another member weren't exactly being courteous to each other. Yet, your first post in this thread was in exactly the same mould as those exchanges. Can you see the problem there, Doc? You lock a thread for insulting conduct and then do exactly the same thing in this thread.Insulting the Remainer fantasy's of the Indy is not against the rules of the forum. If you disagree with a post then report it. Nobody said it was. In fact, many of us enjoy these robust exchanges. But you are acting inconsistently and (imho) disproportionately. You are closing threads for behaviour you yourself engage in. What's more, you are closing threads when you could deal with the issue by removing the posts you judge to be inappropriate. The OP of the thread you closed did nothing against the rules, yet you closed her thread. To make matters worse, you regularly do the thing you appear to have closed that thread for. Notice I said 'appear'. It's possible there's a distinction of substance between what you regularly do when you 'insult' and what Bentley and I were doing when we were insulting each other.. But if there is one, it's not apparent. You have gone out of your way to avoid explaining the distinction. The reasonable conclusion is that there isn't one, and that you are applying one rule to your posts and another to everyone else's. Again, that may be just an appearance that you could easily dispel by explaining your critieria. So far, you have chosen not to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 11, 2023 11:17:02 GMT
Insulting the Remainer fantasy's of the Indy is not against the rules of the forum. If you disagree with a post then report it. Nobody said it was. In fact, many of us enjoy these robust exchanges. But you are acting inconsistently and (imho) disproportionately. So report it.. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 11:19:19 GMT
Nobody said it was. In fact, many of us enjoy these robust exchanges. But you are acting inconsistently and (imho) disproportionately. So report it.. Why won't you explain why you apply one set of rules to your posts and a different set of rules to everyone else's? Why won't you explain why you closed someone's thread for behaviour they weren't even involved in? Why won't you explain why you lock threads when you could simply remove offending posts? Why the secrecy? As I've repeatedly said, you may have a good reason, but it would be to everyone's benefit if you would explain that reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 11:23:56 GMT
You need to pay more attention. Your silly rabbit hole was ignored. Here is is again - The discretion to overrule the pre-agreed salient facts of an election, renders the election itself moot - it defies its purpose.
Okay, maybe you could explain the sentence in bold above in plain English? What on earth do you mean by 'pre-agreed salient facts of an election'? The small number of simple facts that are pre-agreed to be salient to the result. ie the form of the official election ritual (including security) and the number of votes made by people who hold the right to make that vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 11:29:01 GMT
Okay, maybe you could explain the sentence in bold above in plain English? What on earth do you mean by 'pre-agreed salient facts of an election'? The small number of simple facts that are pre-agreed to be salient to the result. ie the form of the official election ritual (including security) and the number of votes made by people who hold the right to make that vote. Come again! |
|
