http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=11108007


in reply to unequal treatment

  1. jdporter laughs at daxim's suggestion to just change the policy
  2. daxim personally attacks jdporter against policy
  3. daxim's post is reaped per policy
  4. daxim makes effort to just change the policy, asserts unequal treatment
  5. policy upheld

There is an undeniable consistency here

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: unequal treatment
by LanX (Cardinal) on Oct 27, 2019 at 09:59 UTC
    > 1. jdporter laughs at daxim's suggestion to just change the policy

    Daxim didn't suggest a change of the board's policy.

    No need to add fuel to the fire.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

      Daxim didn't suggest a change of the board's policy.

      he kind of did -> Either restore my post or delete jdporter's.

      Which of those two options is consistent with policy?

      I didn't mean to add "fuel to the fire", just pointing out that daxim proved jdporter's original point.

      It's no big deal.

      Updated

        You said

        > 1. jdporter laughs at ...

        jdporter didn't even reply in this thread, hence you are referring to the original thread.

        Where exactly did daxim talk there about board policy?

        I don't think that posting "alternative realities" helps calming down emotions.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice