I was reading some comments from the contact us section and saw something amusing. A spammer who was banned alleges that it wasn't right to ban him for spamming because his link was not spam, it's wrong to ban someone just for disagreeing and you don't like him.
Message: "Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to block them for spam. If you are referring to the on little link I posted, that not spam. I actually think your forum is cool but not if you block people just because you don't like them."
So according to klauskesselGO, he was banned for:
* His link being misidentified as spam
* I disagree with him
* I don't like him
This leads me to ask: which one is it? Was he banned for a spam link, me not agreeing with him, or me not liking him? If you're going to make an allegation, don't you have to choose which one you're going to make?
It's like saying, you ran over my puppy because:
* You didn't see him
* You don't like puppies
* You hate me
If you're going to make an allegation, don't you have to choose which one you're going to make? Doesn't it show that what you're saying is a lie if you simultaneously make 3 different accusations which rule each other out?
It just shows that the kind of person who gets banned is the one who will say immediately and without thinking, that he was censored.