"I wonder where all those idiotic fools who blasted me for picking on kindly old JohnnyReb are now? docmanhhatan?? Hammer09? I hope they are enjoying the steaming ' told you so'sandwich! Nothing like being played for a tool huh?"
Uhmm . . . it seems to me you forgot your New Year's Resolution explicitly stated to make efforts to be good to people, regardless.
Nonetheless, putting that aside: Would their expressed and dissenting opinions be allowed without any reprisals or persecution? Would their expressed opinion be allowed without the habitual rumour-mongering that goes on here?
Would their expressed opinions matter if they presented circumstantial evidence that led to an inductive reasoning that the moderator reached a fallible conclusion? Would their expressed opinion matter, whereas the usual jumping on the bandwagon of "this is a private entity (or forum to put it mildly) therefore the conducts of the governing body was immuned from inspection?
Hon', I should state that there is no abstract truth nor concrete truth assumed when a moderator asserts something. Has a motive been established here? Have we been presented with forensic sciences to infer this or any circumstantial evidences for that matter? Or is it the mere fact that the two alleged individuals according to their profiles reside at the same city and state? It is good to look at that 'cuz it most certainly might explain why the moderator would be led to conclude that they were the same individuals, for perhaps they use the same provider. Perhaps you should begin theorising that the user (ProsperGirl, I think it was--not sure of spelling) who came for the first time expressing her opinion about high maintenance gfs was indeed JohnnyReb according to that reasoning too 'cuz she resided at the same city and state, her ISP would most likely be the same and her nature of forwardness would suggest that?
It seems to me one with a dissenting opinion or non-conformist attitude is ostracised and rumours that are empirically unfounded are spread. Having the network as it is obvious exists here makes it easy for one to be persecuted without any system of check. I do not see the need to rebut that which is assumed to be some absolute truth, for doing so would be accepting the concept, which is present here, that it is justified to infringe upon another's rights even if there is no breach of contract or infringement upon the other's on the other end by the accused.
Lastly, it seems there's no such thing as privacy here, even if a contract states it. No wonder I'm cautious. The 'net is not far from a soap opera; or is it?
I doubt once again I need state that this is my expressed opinion, which to the best of my knowledge I am entitled to.
Facebook
Twitter