OK, lets do a count...
- I'm paranoid
- I'm losing my grip on reality
- I'm obsessed
- I post idiocies
(That's how you used to address Jude, wasn't it?)
Here's the nutshell...
Even though Jude was very open with her posts to the point of it being a transparent transitional journey, you saw her as an easy target for you to follow around the board to browbeat and to ridicule to gain the sad praise of the penny stinkers.
Your efforts went a long way in drumming her up as unpopular which eventually led to her being the best scapegoat for the supposed contaminated link.
The moderation team suspended, then banned Jude while offering no proof of any rule breaking.
Conveniently the moderation team has a (failsafe) policy of not discussing bans (which is fine) but I feel it extremely harsh to hang Jude with the blame of almost single-handedly bringing the board down if it wasn't true.
If the moderation team had to prove that the 'meltdown' came from a contaminated link posted by Jude, could they? And if not, then why was she banned?
(Neither of us are looking for re-instatement btw.)
Jude would't back down on the Jimmy Saville thing. And she was proven right. (Perhaps that, in the big picture, was her 'crime'.)