Jack Manning | Site suggestions | Discussion forum

Peter, I hope the suspension on Jacks account is only temporary, because if we suspend people simply because they say something the mass don't like it, sooner or later, that will happen to ourselves. I just want him to calm down for the moment so we can engage in reasonable conversation again.

Since I don't spend much time here reading threads and posts, I thus have no comments about JM specifically. Generally most forums have certain rules/policy about what is not appropriate to post, how a site is moderated, and that the site's owners and moderators have the right to do pretty much what they want with posted material, i.e. once someone posts here, that post is in generally in public domain and is thereafter owned by the site's owners.

Unless a post breaks the 'rules' and needs to be deleted, e.g. libel, copyright, illegal, etc., posts probably should never be deleted. Search engines (bots) have captured them anyway.

I don't see any rules or disclaimers for this site but perhaps I am not looking in the right places. Am I missing something?

Perhaps Peter will choose to comment on this. Perhaps he will choose to delete my post. He is free to do whatever he deems appropriate.
I just want to inform people that, between what are now posts #1 and #2, this thread originally included several additional posts from Jack, and one from me. The purpose of the one from me was simply to preserve Jack's first post because he had developed the habit overnight of posting things and then deleting them within an hour or so. I wanted people to know what he'd said, at least in the original post.
Peter has deleted these posts using his own best judgment because of the nature of their content. These posts occurred overnight and early in the morning, and I may have been the only other person who read them before they were deleted.
Thus, what you see is not originally what was there. I believe that Peter has suspended the account because of what was there. He is doing his job by trying to maintain a site that does not tolerate bullying, harassment, or personal attacks, and I support his decision 100%.
My advice, for what it's worth, is "let it go". Let's use our time to deal with issues that can help us with our financial situation.

Rick J said

Peter, delete all of Jack Manning's posts because if Jack's account is no longer active then it is unfair that he can only read comments but will not be writing a response to them.

I don't know why people have to keep making comments at the expense that someone can't defend themselves anymore.

Don't think it is up to Peter to have to delete all Jack's posts. In fact, I think they should stay. After the SD situation, it sucks going back thru posts only to find incomplete discussions because most of his posts/replies are gone. This is a public forum people, if you don't want it viewed forever, don't post it.

Damn! I've been away from the forums and seem to have missed all this fun.

GS

We should not process the attitude of "assume guilty" for any individual because nobody want to be falsely accuse of anything. Especially we cannot pin point anyone to the precision of individual level on the internet.

"A block of words" is indeed prohibiting for others to participate in conversation, but that does not mean this person shall be ejected as freedom of speech prevail in our society. Instead, we shall gave him direction to make our participation in the forum more comfortable.

I also want to ask Peter what rule have you use from the rule book you draft previously to make this decision as I question is this action against Greg just?