Re: Old Glory, slightly moldy. What to do?
Here is my rebuttal:
My post was NOT deleted for "political content" mine was deleted for being "off topic"..
I was encouraged to read the Registration Terms and Conditions of Service"
Guess what? I DID!!
As a matter of fact, I find NO RULE in the "Registration Terms and Conditions of Service" that say ANY response must be about the subject being discussed!!! NOR do I find any rule disallowing political discussion/conversation. THOSE ARE THE RULES YOU POSTED AND I FOLLOWED THEM – based on the current accusations you are making, I wish MY post re-posted!
So, the way I see it (via YOUR rules), neither MY comment or TTC's can be removed, under the rules, for being “off topic” or “political.”
As far as “on topic:” My post stated the proper method of flag disposal. TTC's offers no information pertinent to the original question. TTC could have recited a passage from “Little Women” or “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone” and been JUST AS “ON TOPIC!” as what he actually posted. The Moderators should be fine with that, though, as being “off topic” is not a violation of the "Registration Terms and Conditions of Service."
***WHAT IS A VIOLATION IS THE FOLLOWING ***
By TTC calling my statement "drivel" would definitely be a violation of Paragraph 13 of your own "Registration and terms of Service," which states:
"You may not post messages that are objectionable and meant to offend or incite conflict " TTC's comment has OBVIOUSLY "incite[d] conflict" and is definately "meant to offend." His post should be removed.
MY post should NOT have offended anyone, it was merely a suggestion of what someone MIGHT WANT TO DO to replace a flag - I was not promoting "boarding vessels" and ripping down flags and replacing them while the skipper is under duress of cannon fire! I say fly whatever flag you want to fly!
Also, TTC violated Rule 16 which states: "You may not use this forum to post messages that are meant to embarrass other members in an attempt to settle personal disputes."
TTC's aforementioned response was DEFINATELY meant to embarrass me by using the insulting word "drivel." By calling my statements “drivel” he obviously had “disputes” about my content. He could have simply sent a message to a moderator to have my comment removed. In regards to this, TTC's post should be removed.
Remember, I have NOT, yet, asked mine post to be re-instated; I am requesting you remove TTC's for violation of Rule 13 and 16. I would also like the reason mine was redacted to state the TRUE reason - Violation of rule 13 in that it contained "objectionable material.” (Since “objectionable” is subjective, I will confess to it, but the flag one flies is a matter of “taste,” like the paint color of the boat would be. Demanding that someone fly the USA ensign is “objectionable” to me – as it would be to a Briton, an Aussie, a Brazilian, etc.)
To say it is "Political" is simply a fallacy as I accused "the last 3 administrations" of violating the Constitution (Clinton, Bush and Obama) making it politically neutral. I referenced 4 federals laws only as logical support for MY reasoning to NOT replace MY sailing ensign with the flag of the USA.
That is my case AS YOU HAVE ASKED me to present. Now YOU need to remove the insulting post calling my post "drivel," or RE-POST my original content.
If YOU are going to allow SOME people to break rules (TTC), then YOU must allow all people to break rules.
The question is will you hide your own embarrassment by deleting this post or will you do what's right and delete TTC's post and re-instate mine. Why should his opinion count for more than mine (unless he is an owner of sailnet to which he has the full right to post/delete whatever he wishes)?