The Appeal to my Suspension
Darat is abusing is power again. Just yesterday I sent a complaint e-mail to James Randi and D.J. Grothe (President) of the JREF complaining about the abusive conduct of Jeff Wagg. I guess it took a day to filter down to Jeff and subsequently to Darat to once again kick me off the JREF. Or maybe I am paranoid, like Jeff says.
The following is the appeal I have submitted. Decide for yourself.
I appeal the following:
Edit:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5686812#post5686812
Infraction & Suspension:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169156
The thread is about bias in closing FM threads. Darat in one of his posts in the thread in question wrote:
Well yes and no. The "yes" is the fact that someone, for example, who kept opening a thread about something they've been told not to do so would be treated differently based on the warnings they have received, but in the more general sense, it's a "no".
The text that was removed from my post was an example of [I]exactly[/I] what Darat described in the quoted paragraph. How can it be off topic for Darat to discuss it but not myself?
In my infracted post, I presented further evidence of bias in thread closures, which is exactly that the thread is about. I dealt specifically with how many threads are left open, which is a direct answer to Darat's question of "in what way" do Plumjam's statistics indicate a pattern of bias. The infraction was for Rule 11. and for the life of me I cannot see how answering Darat's question in the thread is a Rule 11 violation.
The following is the appeal I have submitted. Decide for yourself.
I appeal the following:
Edit:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5686812#post5686812
Infraction & Suspension:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169156
The thread is about bias in closing FM threads. Darat in one of his posts in the thread in question wrote:
Well yes and no. The "yes" is the fact that someone, for example, who kept opening a thread about something they've been told not to do so would be treated differently based on the warnings they have received, but in the more general sense, it's a "no".
The text that was removed from my post was an example of [I]exactly[/I] what Darat described in the quoted paragraph. How can it be off topic for Darat to discuss it but not myself?
In my infracted post, I presented further evidence of bias in thread closures, which is exactly that the thread is about. I dealt specifically with how many threads are left open, which is a direct answer to Darat's question of "in what way" do Plumjam's statistics indicate a pattern of bias. The infraction was for Rule 11. and for the life of me I cannot see how answering Darat's question in the thread is a Rule 11 violation.

