I can see that objective members continue to be putted off by the Moderators tendency to sermon good manners lessons unto
others.
There are sundry rules on approachable politicaly correct themes and 'no-nos', on "how to post smartly enough" and so on,
but are there strong enough 'acceptable behaviour guidelines' proposed to the higher Gurus intittled "Moderators"???
Is it acceptable and acceptable polite to publish not only holier than thou appreciations but clearly offending terms as
coarse qualifying other members assumptions and/or opinions?
For example: After some member exposé about some of his views and complains about some non-personal issues... Is this
person expected to stand corrected with phrases such as, for instance: «The rantings you are BARKING about in your post..»
Does LQ faces as "polite and good mannered" this swift dog calling???!

If such an insult was spelled and bytted face to face to me i would work to break the aggressive attacking teeth of the
author of such uttered politeness. But once they were far away produced, and under the coat of a nickname, i guess the imagined offended poster would have to catch it and sustain his anger.

Back to the point of my above quotation:
Once LQ is keen to invite its expunged by insult members to participate in this sort of debate on how to ensure means of
making the site better, i thought i ought to express my best wishes so that Gurus (also known as Senior Members) and Moderators could refrain from aggressive hard-disciplinating styles in their hammering sermons when they feel or imagine the words of any poster which are deemed as 'out-of-line' or ilegaly commited to "malpractices" or (God forbids it!) criticizing this or that Linux performance issue.

Sorry to bother
nrick

I'm having a hard time understanding this last post ...

Same here.

FWIW, I remember reporting the thread in question, using precisely the reasoning that others have given above: it looked like the OP wanted to circumvent restrictions and if that was not the case, they should have been clearer.

To Nylex, H_TeXMeX_H and anybody else who is scratching thier heads over nricks post above (#16), see here-

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-which-894122/

The 'barking' comment comes from TB0nes reply to a post by nrick here (post #2 by TB0ne is where you will find it)-

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ording-896080/

What nrick posted in this thread is NOT what TB0ne actually said-

That should explain it...well, some of it anyway. I think that the original cause for this was a minor misunderstanding that has been blown out of proportion.

4 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the links. Now that I see what the issue is, I'd have to say that I stand 100% with the moderators. Their decisions were appropriate given the circumstances.