Philanthropy post.

cornerblock

Could someone explain to me why my post was deleted from the Philanthropy thread. I understand that there was a misunderstanding between two members, but I'm baffled as to why I was removed and what rule I may have broken. I can't remember my post word for word but it went something like

Yes I think Spen666 may have got the wrong end of the stick as I also read Arran77's post as more, what is the point in having more money than you need if you don't use it to help others. Having said that the naughty step must be a sad little place.

Not too far off what I wrote. Now so as I don't fall foul of the 'rules' again would the person who deleted it have the decency to tell me what is wrong with it.

If anything that was a post intended to keep the peace. I even tried to inject a bit of humour at the end, although I will accept my attempts at that are often not noticeable!

I hope you're as quick with your reply as you are with the delete button.

nicklouse

as it had nothing to do with the cleaned up thread? and was removed with all the other ones?

read the thread. what sence would your post have made?

cornerblock

I assume you mean sense. Well why bother to leave the reply to my post on there? How the hell can that make any sense anymore then?

And the posts about cahunas? They're still there, do they make sense on a thread about philanthropy?


As to your question about what sense my post would make to the thread, it's called joining in. Two people get crossed lines and then somebody else gives a neutral view to hopefully defuse an argument and move the conversation on, or is that now against the 'rules'? I do realise you have to keep things under control but I think here you have been a bit heavy- handed. I think it's you that need to read my post again and honestly ask yourself if it really broke a rule. And if you still conclude that it does, then RIP legitimate free speech on Bike Radar

arran77

I have no idea why you were singled out on this one, the person who should have been but has not been is spen666 or whatever he's called, he was out of order :roll:

nicklouse

Cornerblock wrote:

I assume you mean sense. Well why bother to leave the reply to my post on there? How the hell can that make any sense anymore then?

And the posts about cahunas? They're still there, do they make sense on a thread about philanthropy?


As to your question about what sense my post would make to the thread, it's called joining in. Two people get crossed lines and then somebody else gives a neutral view to hopefully defuse an argument and move the conversation on, or is that now against the 'rules'? I do realise you have to keep things under control but I think here you have been a bit heavy- handed. I think it's you that need to read my post again and honestly ask yourself if it really broke a rule. And if you still conclude that it does, then RIP legitimate free speech on Bike Radar

er step back, i can not answer you as i have not seen any of what was written. I am just giving a possible reason.

cornerblock

With all due respect nicklouse I'm not after possible reasons. I'd like the person who actually deleted my post and who knows the content of the Philanthropy thread to tell me why it was deemed necessary to delete mine but leave the response to mine and then leaving others that are of less relevance to the subject of philanthropy.

I appreciate you responding but I would prefer it if the person who made the call to delete my post came forward and answered my original question.