I'm just seeing how often others are allowed to freely insult people while some are not. Call it an experiment in favoritism. Others question my experience and skills (see multiple usage of the word "inexperienced" by both Widewing and Ack-ack); but I can not reply in kind. Fair? Hardly. Typical? Absolutely. Someone has to look himself in the mirror and accept the tag of biased. That won't change even after I'm banned. The mirror, and the bias, will still be there - staring back.
Rule #2 was invoked on my post? Interesting.
When I posted about Bong using the P-38 and my fondness for the P-38, that was on just barely on topic, certainly as on topic as Widewing's response. How was Widewing's post about McCampbell on topic? What does McCampbell's record have to do with the nickname of P-38's, or even P-38's at all? Pure, indefensible favoritism and bias. As a matter of fact, how was your post on topic, Oldman?
Does this mean that Skuzzy doesn't love me anymore? Maybe I should have sent flowers. Maybe Skuzzy should read rule #4 a little more closely and apply it to Ack-ack and Widewing's insulting posts. Or at the very least, apply it evenly. That goes for all the rules, doesn't it? If they aren't applied equally, then aren't they simply a matter of whim? That's when the favoritism and bias slip into the mix. Skuzzy was correct to delete all of the involved posts when he did it the first time. But, for some reason, he choose to come back and reinstate Widewing's and Ack-ack's posts in the argument and just delete mine. Not even an attempt at honest and fair application of the rules, the second time around.
Rules that aren't applied fairly aren't really rules at all. Just a form of power display. Since they aren't rules, they must not apply to me. When they're applied fairly, I'll abide by them.
Start the office pool on how long this post lasts.
