I posted the link below. Rawr deleted a comment of mine because I called TP an ignoramus. Rawr called it a personal attack. I think ignoramus is a pretty milquetoast word, hardly any different than the word troll, which I understand is fair game, but if he wants to be a stickler for the rules then that’s his prerogative, but . . . he’s not consistently a stickler for the rules. I was posting a comment intended to mirror a comment TP made to me in which he called me a liar. I am not criticizing TP’s comment and I don’t think he crossed a line, but calling someone a liar is surely a greater insult than calling them an ignorant person. Yet while my comment responding to TP was deleted, TP’s comment remained. Obviously Rawr saw TP’s comment. Obviously, he could see I was merely mirroring TP’s comment. Even if you all think we were insulting each other in violation of the guidelines, I fail to understand why TP’s initial comment would remain, while my comment would be deleted – unless Rawr is simply not applying the rules consistently. Here’s the exchange, for your convenience, and the link to Rawr’s deletion is below:
I understand that Rawr dislikes me – and I’m certainly not fond of him, but his selective moderation is just bad for discussion. I don’t actually think either TP or I crossed a line, but if I crossed a line then TP obviously did and Rawr obviously saw TP’s comment too.
I’d like my comment reinstated or I’d like TP’s deleted. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but it’s also what makes community rules function as rules.
TP:
I am talking about motivations.
Liar.
You were doing NO SUCH THING when you made the following statement:
Actually, she was a trans terrorist.
Gellie:
Ignoramus.
I was talking about motivations when I made that statement.
Rawr:
MOD COMMENT:
Personal insult – Deleted.
Judge orders FBI to release manifesto from deranged trans shooter to Nashville news outlet