Discussion History Main / ScienceMarchesOn

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong (without a ridiculously heavy dose of ArsonMurderAndJaywalking influenced perspective). The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being very tired and reflexively reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator had removed it. No warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for politely clearing it up were ignored or arrogantly mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much. Especially as cases of \\\"applaud and spread WarIsGlorious SocialDarwinist SadistShow {{Gorn}} ThePowerOfHate supremacist sentiments\\\" generally seems more acceptable (or at least gains much less resistance, but that\\\'s obviously not your fault, it\\\'s due to the ratio of visitors) than finding this sort of thing very offensive.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong (without a ridiculously heavy dose of ArsonMurderAndJaywalking influenced perspective). The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being very tired and reflexively reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator had removed it. No warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for politely clearing it up were ignored or arrogantly mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much. Especially as cases of \\\"applaud and spread WarIsGlorious SocialDarwinist SadistShow {{Gorn}} supremacist sentiments\\\" seem more acceptable than finding this sort of thing offensive.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong (without a ridiculously heavy dose of ArsonMurderAndJaywalking influenced perspective). The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being very tired and reflexively reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator had removed it. No warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for politely clearing it up were ignored or arrogantly mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong (without a ridiculously heavy dose of ArsonMurderAndJaywalking influenced perspective). The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being very tired and reflexively reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator had removed it. No warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for politely clearing it up were ignored or arrogantly mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being very tired and reflexively reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator removed all of it, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for politely clearing it up were ignored or mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\" (or \\\"house rules, [[LawfulEvil regardless if corrupt]]\\\"), no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked.

Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum offhandedly state that they were free to use alternate handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest, taken time to compromise at every corner, and have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (But when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I supposed to do? It\\\'s not like I\\\'m trying to use any subterfuge whatsoever), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I usually make a considerably bigger effort to compromise more than the opposite party (reciprocated with none whatsoever right now), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone, simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki whom she felt was shafted, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it. Regardless the shoutout and \\\"don\\\'t honestly explain, just manipulate\\\" \\\"conveniences\\\" stand).

Me, I\\\'m near completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum state that they had simply started using new handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful and justified, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place due to me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd, but since I saw others on the forum state that they had simply started using new handles in the same thread, I assumed that it was some kind of temp-ban equivalent, similarly to Wikipedia. However, since I am always completely open about who I am, it later somehow turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any compromise whatsoever. It turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima, who got a part ban before for whatever reason! What a discovery! Will somebody completely overlook the context and ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything particularly wrong. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it, but regardless, since I\\\'m completely open about who I am all the time, it turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima! What a discovery! Will somebody ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and some people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it, but regardless, since I\\\'m completely open about who I am all the time, it turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima! What a discovery! Will somebody ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it, but regardless, since I\\\'m completely open about who I am all the time, it turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima! What a discovery! Will somebody ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core regarding what any matter \\\'\\\'really\\\' is about, whereas it is common that a party that opposes an addition (such as cclospina) tends to systematically do multiple edits in a definite direction, but not state it out loud for discussion. However, I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it, but regardless, since I\\\'m completely open about who I am all the time, it turns very convenient for underhanded editors to simply shout \\\"This user that I need out of the way strictly for personal information-control purposes really is antvasima! What a discovery! Will somebody ban him pretty please!\\\" in the edit blurb... awfully convenient... and completely unjustified).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she wanted gone simple due to identifying with the token \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. Being used to Wikipedia editing, this came across as extremely odd. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromised at every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true as far as I\\\'m aware.

I also do not respect using derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she disagreed with due to identifying with the token true manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she disagreed with due to identifying with the token true manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate pattern that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent entries be, simply due to personal convenience, especially at a page where the \\\"entire point\\\" is to list these, then this also acts as a major anti-censorship/pattern-breaker trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she disagreed with due to identifying with the token true manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly. To his credit he didn\\\'t fall for it).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate truth that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent emtries be, simply due to personal convenience, then this also acts as a major trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for me being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes for once, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, no warnings or clarifications whatsoever, just \\\"bam!\\\". Whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating (for example CrypticMirror\\\'s attempt to suck up to FastEddie in an effort to guide him to delete all RanmaOneHalf entries, which she disagreed with due to identifying with the token true manipulative sociopath Nabiki, was so extreme that it turned silly).

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate truth that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent emtries be, simply due to personal convenience, then this also acts as a major trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together to say the least), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating.

Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising. Also, if there is an entirely accurate truth that urges to get out and people start to target this \\\'\\\'in particular\\\'\\\', while letting other equivalent emtries be, simply due to personal convenience, then this also acts as a major trigger. In this case there is no good rational reason whatsoever to remove the column in its entirety. Compress all the parts, sure, that\\\'s reasonable, but remove all of it due to inconvenient \\\"heresy\\\", no matter how truthful, not so much.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating. Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core, but I don\\\'t let my own biases get in the way of compromising.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle (but when the login doesn\\\'t react to it, what am I suppsoed to do?), and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party (none whatsoever in this case), and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating. Me, I\\\'m completely honest and cut straight to the core.

I haven\\\'t done anything wrong whatsoever. The original \\\"ban\\\" simply came into place for being tired and reinserting a cut out text without changes, when somebody I didn\\\'t know was a moderator did so, whereupon my attempts for clearing it up were ignored or mocked, and then turned into a convenient dishonourable catch-all for anybody who wanted to quiet down anything they disagree with without any comrpomise whatsoever. I have never been anything but completely honest and compromisedat every corner. I have never added anything that isn\\\'t true.

I also do not respect using incivility, derogatory insults (the words \\\"please\\\" and \\\"pathetic\\\" don\\\'t go well together), lack of valid arguments, heavy-handed censorship without compromise or honest discourse of intents simply if content does not follow whatever ideology somebody else subscribes to. I would much prefer to be able to log in with my regular handle, and not have to be subjected to extreme double-standards in that I compromise far more than the opposite party, and always tell the truth, yet they can get away with almost anything as long as they try to be more insidous or ingratiating.