If I met an ugly person and said "You're ugly" - it'd be true, but disprespectful.
Likewise if I saw an overweight person and called them 'fatty', that would be disrespectful.
Those comments would certainly be needlessly offensive and serve no good purpose, humiliating persons with little or no choice--or moral culpability--in the relevant matter; nor have the ugly slandered the fair, nor the fat the slim. Charging a slandering liar with his lies is materially different. Even the great respect due to the Office of the President should not preclude the observation that the current occupant is a liar who has done great harm to others.
I did not suspend Dr Adequate because he was not stating facts or otherwise. I suspended him because his comments were disrespectful. I suspended Dr Adequate because randman has been suspended for much less and it would be a double standard to look the other way for Dr Adequate.
Randman is apparently beyond suspension, having gained the powerful immunities of Showcase.
The 'but he is a liar' defense has been used time and time again here, by randman included. It didn't work in randman's defense, it won't work in Dr Adequate's.
Truth is a defense that could never work for randman, though it should confer some good to anyone who speaks it.
No defense could ever work for anyone here, because discussions of post mortem reservations such as mine are not trials. Still, I do recognize the forum's legitimate (though sometimes somewhat selective) concern for decorum.
I won't weary you further with the issue, AdminModulous. Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------