On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Perhaps it's even a matter of necessity rather than choice, as when they're severely allergic to peanuts and must avoid any food that even has a chance of having touched something with peanut residue; this may impose severe limits on what they can eat, and where their food may come from, but it still wouldn't make sense for them to claim they were "banned" from places that use peanuts.
I still feel banned.
That's entirely up to you. Your continued use of the term remains inappropriately hyperbolic and fundamentally inaccurate, and you know it.
Blocked -> appeal to community -> appeal fails -> banned?
Does it really matter, though? It could easily be a year before I'm sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least.
Wikipedia is not therapy.
- d.
So why not ban an insane person... politely?
And apparently Wikipaedia is the opposite of therapy, at least just now.
Armed Blowfish