qeee1 wrote: whether a paraphrase of likely dialogue or a reconstruction of past dialogue, it's irrelevant, as it's still wrong.
Well that's not what you said the first time you replied to it; but sure, why not change your stance now?
qeee1 wrote:I made 2 points, 1. that claiming democratic rights is wrong - this you acknowledged
Claiming we have them now is wrong (as you say), claiming we should have them in the future is right (as Suggs says).
Easy stuff; do pay attention 007.
qeee1 wrote:2. that claiming that the site could be improved through democratic consultation prior to mods being fired is silly- this you ignored
Oh "Puhlease".
Smug though you may feel about your pedantic insistence on having people paraphrase you in tedious detail; nobody was ever seriously arguing against you on that point, so your making it was (1) irrelevant, and (2) self-evident. Indeed, your bringing it up now only reinforces my original proposition that you and Suggs were talking at cross-purposes.
What people are after here (if you're still having trouble figuring it out) is greater accountability of admins and a more democratic process in making deciscions around the site. This isn't some bizarre "
Mass vote before a sacking" proposal, it's a re-statement of the perpetual issue of "
CC doesn't listen to users, and always fobs them off with PR bullshit when something controversial happens", which is what people seem to want changed.
qeee1 wrote:could you guys outline exactly what it is you want aside from to rage?
Well right now I have this incredible yearning for a certain ego with pretensions of intellect to stop posting tedious, irrelevant and pedantic drivel at me...
No but seriously, see above.
qeee1 wrote:Also stop saying mean things, that really hurts.
I can assure you that I too am cut deeply by such things. So don't worry, we can suffer together.