http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=11107979


in reply to unequal treatment

Your perception of "in kind" is certainly not what I would consider "in kind". It looks to me much more directed at the other person.

I don't find jdporters original reply that eloquent, but it certainly is not a direct insult. I consider your post a direct insult.

Your consideration of the post did not contain an action (edit or delete). I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.

I think a better way forward would be for jdporter to edit his post and direct it towards a more constructive critique of your original post. For example, I could see that suggesting to introduce an unapproved machine into a network is not really sound advice to somebody who wants to keep being gainfully employed.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: unequal treatment
by Athanasius (Archbishop) on Oct 26, 2019 at 13:20 UTC
    I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.

    I did, earlier today. I don’t remember the exact tally, but I think the node had 6 “keep” votes, well above the 2 required to prevent reaping.

    daxim: I’m sorry my action caused you offence. But the Consideration votes were such that the node could not be reaped under the guidelines, so I saw no point in leaving the node in Nodes to Consider.

    I hope you understand that this is all standard procedure; also, that jdporter was not involved in the process.

    Update: Please see What is Reaping?

    Cheers,

    Athanasius <°(((><contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,