Why Should Someone be Banned?

There has been several people banned from the forum recently. I don’t know why or who reported them, except one & that was Bill Gray whom reported Wooley. Bill said he didn’t report him to have him banned, but I cannot believe he didn’t think there was a good chance he would be. (He was banned within hours of Bill’s reporting him)


There’s been twice recently, both on the same day, that Bill made a comment to Wooley that I felt was report/ban worthy. I, in fact, reported one of them.


On September 11, Bill made the comment that Dwight's avatar looked like it came from a Pedophile web site. The picture, for goodness sake, was of a baby in a diaper, dancing. Several of us mentioned that we didn’t see the picture as relating to a Pedophile web site. (I've never been to one so I wouldn't know)

Only Bill’s sick mind saw it that way. Of course, to protect himself, Bill added “Since I know that is not your style”. Bill doesn’t know Dwight so how would he know what his style is or isn't? He doesn’t, as I said he added it as a way to try & protect himself.


Then on September 30, Bill made two more comments.

At 3:06 AM, he posted:  “Hi Dwight, Just curious. Is there a reason you like avatars which show young boys and young men -- dancing in their skivvies? As I said, just curious”.



At 2:54 PM, Bill posted: "Hi Dwight, My Friend, they are YOUR AVATARS -- so, I have no need to explain them. If young children in diapers and young men in shorts are YOUR THING; so be it. As the old 1970s song said, "It's yo thing, do what you gotta do!" 



In the rules of this forum, one is that we may not submit anything that is libelous or defamatory concerning any person. Am I the only one that sees these comments as defamatory? Are those comments not just as slanderous as the comment Wooley (Dwight) made to Bill, if not more so?


Bill is implying that Wooley likes young boys, young men, young children in diapers, & young men in shorts. He’s implying Wooley is a pedophile.  What makes this even worse is that Bill claims to be a Christian. If he really thought Wooley was a Pedophile, why not carry it to him privately? Why would any human being want to be so hurtful to another?


I didn’t see Wooly’s comment he made to Bill as slanderous. Yes, he should have carried it to Bill privately but it wasn’t worth being banned over.

The post could have been deleted & that would have taken care of it in a nutshell. When a report is made you have a message box. Bill could have easily ask for the topic or said post to be deleted. He could have requested that the member not be banned.


If Bill was upset over it enough to report him, why discuss it with him in emails as he said he was doing?

Sorry this is so long, I'm just curious what everyone’s opinion is.




Original Post