|Perl Monk, Perl Meditation|
I just don't think Tye messed with your account. From his past behaviour, I can't see him doing it.
You're right; but for the wrong reasons. Tye has abused his position on several occasions. Of course it is very hard for a non-privileged monk to prove that; but when you are here every day and have logic and analysis at your disposal, it is clear if not proven.
So, my assumption was based upon experience and history; but in the end, factually incorrect. But I only 'know' that because of hearsay.
But the fact that any single person can wield that level of caprice without check or balance reinforces the premise of my first thread, against which that unconscionable action was exacted, and for which this thread was my *only recourse*.
Regardless of whether you consider that first thread warranted some extraordinary response -- I don't. I only asked a perfectly valid question in a perfectly valid, and even polite way (which is unarguable if you read that question, rather than the reaction to it) -- you have to concur that unilaterally disabling an account on the basis of nothing more than a personal distaste for the owner of that account, and his temerity to question the status quo, is exactly why the question needed to be asked; and why it should be responded to.
The site norm is that it takes four different monks to concur that an obvious spam-post is indeed spam -- and (if I understand it correctly) zero contrary votes, and multiple, disparate, deliberate, actions by each of those 4 monks, in order for that post to be reaped.
But, one, privileged (supposedly trusted and trustworthy) monk can, on a whim, ban another monk whom he dislikes. Is that right? Even if the banned monk, is a arrogant, egocentric, know-it-all (Ie. me)?
If its right, move on. If it's not right, then re-read the OP of the first thread. Read it carefully. Is there anything in there that says Tye is bad. That Tye shouldn't be a God. Anything that denigrates Tye.
Those are rhetorical questions, because there isn't. It simply asks if, given that the vast majority of the God's -- the only ones whom have any possibility of providing check & balance to the actions of the other Gods -- are totally inactive; is this place best served by those that remain given their obvious and self-described, lack of time to give to this place?
Maybe the fact that I'm the only one who's sees a problem means I spend too much time here. Or maybe, it means that all those other experienced, talented, creative monks that have been and gone; and no longer bother with this place; means that they reached their point of frustration with this place long ago and simply walked away.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.