Jimmy moyer I have unbanned you, Toro if you come to this board again and start what you did last night, you are going to be banned. Your choice....perhaps you can discuss it with your broker, and just so your clear, there were complaints.
Ok ... Here is the official definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:I think not said:Define character assasination please
Character assassination refers to the act of individuals or groups who intentionally attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him/her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his/her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is correctly likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death.
Humans, by nature, work and live in groups and have criteria for acceptance and rejection. It is a mechanism for justice, and a way to enforce standards of behavior in group members. The threat of rejection is the means of enforcement.
Humans, by nature, also have the ability to rationalize and 'toe the line'. One definition of power is being able to get a person's community to think the way one wants it to think. The threat of force (loss of job, for example) is very powerful in getting people to see things one's way.
Character assassination is the predatory use of this power to cause a person to be rejected from his/her community. It is characterized by; a moral rationalization of the community to reject the person based on character (or rumors of incorrect behavior), not allowing the accused a voice in the discussions (or even to hear the charges, if possible), and the abuse of power to further this goal.
I think not said:I am Cosmo, but quite honestly, you have to start banning quite a few people if we use that definition.
I can't quite honestly see why jimmoyer was banned. And if Toro was then Rev should have been also.
You said in one of your posts if we have a complaint we should be open about it.
Here's my complaint, if you're part of the "crowd" you are given preferential treatment. This isn't fair at all in my opinion. And I am not passing judgement, as I recognize the fact being a moderator isn't an easy thing.
Nevertheless, I think you need to be a bit more objective in your perceptions.
I think not said:No what you need are moderators that fall dead center, to be able to make the distinction. Who started bares no consequence. It takes two to tango.
Your comment of, if you don't like it leave, falls under the Bush doctrine. You're either with us or against us.
Just as you have stated you don't like that doctrine, please refrain from imposing it on me.