Thread:Cc71/@comment-3247345-20121230064419

I wanted to say that my problem was never with you, it was always with babycakey, and I apologize if you felt my accusations of tyrany were directed at you. I should have been more clear when I complained about "the administration". Yeah I highly disagree with the ban but I didn't call you (or babycakey for that matter) a tyrant because of that. It was the way babycakey did it that prompted me to do what I did. I was actually telling socks not to bother complaining about it until I realized that the warning had been changed to a block retroactively. While I do think favoritism on babycakey's part prompted her to do that I realize that me saying that was unnecessary and created more drama than it would have if I would have just complained about the retroactivity. Eric told me that he thinks it should have been a strong warning but it was babycakey's call. He also said that she shouldn't have retroactively changed the warning to a block. Had she just outright blocked socks I probably wouldn't have complained and if I had complained presumably Eric would have told me that he disagrees but it was her call to make. I would have dropped the issue in that case. It was the retroactivity plus plus babycakey's attitude that prompted me to do what I did and publicize all my complaints about the VW that had been festering for a long time. I don't think you agreeing with the block was tyranical even if I do think it's unduly harsh. I realize that you might have been more willing to listen to my complaints had I not gone off the way I did. I know I'll never be able to deal with babycakey because of her attitude but I'd at least like to bury the hatchet with you. I never thought you were a tryrant for agreeing to the block. It was the way it was done and you had nothing to do with that part of it. I know I've accused you of "enabling" babycakey and I apologize for that. I really think there was confusion about my objections. You seem to be focusing on whether a block was justified  and I was focusing on the fact that it was changed to a block with no actions from socks. I realize that me going off like that did nothing to clarify the situation. For me the issue was about socks having a chance to change her behavior after the warning if the warning was originally decided on.

  