I'm not handing over to you a section of a thread in the moderator forum aint. That's the only real way to answer your question. You're not entitled to that.
Just exactly what I've come to expect from you, Kicky. Claims based on supposed reliance upon "secret" information that no on else is "entitled to." Since they don't have the secret, inaccessible information, you tell them, like One Brow, that he can't argue with you. The implication is that if only he knew what you knew, he would agree with you. But he can't know what you know, because you refuse to reveal it.
Either a) you appealed and you lost or b) you never bothered to ask for an appeal. No matter which version of events you believe the discussion is moot.
Call it moot, all you want. I didn't claim it was (or was not) moot. I claimed that the so-called warning was vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. It is, and was. That's the truth of the matter.
Had I known that this "issue" was supposedly being "litigated" (your word) on "appeal," I would have pointed out why, but of course I wasn't given that opportunity.
As you know, among other problems, the so-called "notice of warning"
1. Contained a reference to page numbers which did not exist,
2. Did not contain a link to the allegedly objectionable post(s), your postive assurance to the contrary notwithstanding,
3. Quoted all kinds of rules about "bizzare posting formats," deliberate disruption of the useablility of the board (trolling) and other things, but nothing was said about how my post(s) could possibly violate those rules, and
4. My two subsequent requests for clarification went totally unresponded to.
I wonder if you told Jason all of that on "my" appeal, eh? I know I didn't. I wasn't even there.
