But asking me to apologize because people’s feelings got hurt simply isn’t reasonable. Why are their feelings hurt? Their feelings aren’t hurt because of that other account that they’d never interacted with, their feelings are hurt because their mistreatment was exposed. That’s not my fault.

Your feelings were hurt – in my opinion – by your own false expectations, your insular community and by a conversation so poisonous that you’re unable to tell friend from foe. Oh no! It turns out that this person that I assumed was a foe (based on content I never saw) was actually a friend?! Well, let’s find a way to shame them for not clearly identifying themselves as a friend, first.

Dial it back, Dillahunty. Words like those have a tendency to burn bridges.

Close the thread if you like. I won’t be back to this one.

I agree, close this thread down. The conflict can only be solved through two-way communication, which won’t be happening on this page. Instead, sympathizers will be duking it out over their opinions of other people’s behavior, and trolls will be oh-so-happy to egg them on. No good can come of it.

But not quite so arrogant when considered in full context. The preceding post, from a moderator was:

“You know what serves as a functional one-way ticket to don’t-take-me-seriously-ville? Saying you have “legitimate questions” and are just “trying to help” by showing up and demonstrating what a smart person you are. Instead of, you know, actually participating in the community.”

Matt acted like a troll. He came in with a brand new account and the first thing he did with it was protest a ban. Moreover, though is the part that seems to be left out:

Matt had his question answered and kept asking it. He asked once how to appeal, and was answered, told ‘sorry, seems the post is gone, you can re-post it’. He then asked that question again over and over seemingly because he didn’t like the answer he was given, even though it was the answer. And that answer was given quite calmly — the snark that came out was only after Matt (as Curious) was told ‘sorry, it’s gone’.

That’s not a way to convince people that you’re not a troll. That’s a way to irritate people, and moreover to convince them that you are a troll. Flew even tried to make that point, that Matt’s behaviour in the thread wasn’t endearing anyone to view him in good faith, and that’s part of what Matt threw his little shit fit over:

And now Flewellyn is implying that my posts here would have some bearing on whether or not they should be overruled on the original topic…

YES, MATT! YES THEY DID! If you make a possibly trolly post that gets removed, and then complain about that removal in a trolly manner, you’re going to get seen as a troll! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has a bill and feathers…I mean, seriously, dude, did you shut your brain off when you walked into that thread?

You acted like a troll. We responded in kind. Apologize, or deal with it.

Here’s what I actually wrote:

“You should probably know who you’re talking to before making accusations about actually participating in the community.
It might be nice if you knew the content of the original post before disregarding it.

Sincerely,
Matt Dillahunty”

Damn, that just reeks of “do you know who I am? I am Matt Dillahunty, the number one dude in the atheist/skeptic universe and you will respect my authoritah!” Sorry Cartman Dillahunty, but you come across as extremely arrogant in this statement.

You rather exaggerate Matt’s behaviour. He had been directed to that part of the forum by an email telling him that his initial posting had been declined and he should visit this particular forum if he wished to dispute that.

Having been told that the post had been deleted he asked how he was supposed to appeal the decision if the original content had been deleted.

He received some answers to other points he had raised but did to get an answer on the appeal question. so he asked one more time, not over and over again as you state.

I suspect that there was some misunderstanding, I can understand that some thought Matt was being stupid by asking how to appeal the decision to decline publishing his initial post when he had already been told hat the post had been deleted. However Matt could equally have meant, why have you directed me here to appeal your decision if you have already deleted the submission and can’t retrieve it.