The problem, such as it is Such as? Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the appearance. But without some sort of example to go on, I can't begin to figure or explain the context. Which posts referred to? Reviewing your posts in this thread, I see no specific examples to start with. Of course, as there are over 150 posts total in this discussion, I might have missed something. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to it? You are incorrect. Nearly eight thousand of Sandy's posts remain in general circulation. (Hint: Go to the user profile, click the "Statistics" tab or "Show All Statistics" link, and you will find options to find all posts or threads in general circulation.) And I am well aware of the contexts in which certain actions of my fellows are taken. That's why examples help. And you think that's all there is to it? Do you speak nothing of context in this example? When was this particular suspension for using Obama's full name? Which moderator suspended you? What can you tell me about the thread or the post in question? Looking through the record, I've found three suspensions so far; yes, I have more searching to do—about ten months worth of the suspension log—so any help you could give would be appreciated. Meanwhile, what I've found is two suspensions in March for repeated attacks on another member (calling someone a Nazi), and one in June for reposting deleted material in one of your spats with yet another member. When were you suspended simply for calling President Obama by his full name? I'm happy to explore the context with you, but I need something to go on. Which defense of Joe? Can you point me to it? John, you once complained that mods pretended to know what others think. It would be helpful if you could explain what you're talking about instead of leave it to others to do your thinking for you. Something about context goes here. And, of course, examples. And, naturally, whether mods know what other people are thinking. Sounds enlightening. Would you like to explore that episode? Who? When? What thread(s)? Also, have you taken these issues up with the relevant moderators? How? What did they say? Did you raise your complaint to the administration? What was the response? It's not just me, Mr. Galt. Over the years, we've heard countless complaints of bias and injustice, and there are two general paths these issues take. Occasionally, the moderators actually go to war against one another, and sometimes publicly; the most recent of these was in December and January, resulted in the resignation of one moderator, and created rifts that have not yet entirely healed. Far more often, though, it is a member complaint that, as far as we can tell, involves an affront to one's pride. The form of your argument, that something is self-evident and here are the reasons you won't provide examples and evidence of your assertions, is the most common we encounter. We have nothing to work with unless we do your thinking for you. That is, unless we scour the record, take a reasonable guess that this or that circumstance is what you're referring to, and then try to piece together the points on the curve as we think you see them, we don't have a case to work with. And I would hope the problems of that method are apparent. It is, I think, a much more accurate statement of your sentiments if you make the case, instead of us. Exceptionally rare are the occasions that a complaint is so blatantly obvious that we simply cannot miss it without effort. I'll take a moment to point out that your use of the name "pdud" can be construed as a pejorative, and therefore an actionable offense. Meanwhile, are you referring to #159? Oh, wait ... I see your post at #151: "I really don't believe there was anything to interpret, it seemed pretty simple to me and my point was reinforced with dud's response to GeoffP." Let's see, there's Geoff at #145, but PJ doesn't respond until #159, and that's to #154, which comes after your complaint about his response to Geoff. Okay, Geoff's prior post is at #116, but I don't see any response to that from PJ. #113? Nope. #106? Still finding a dearth of PJdude responses until #159. #104, 90 ... well, you know what? It's easier at this point to review PJ's record in this thread. Especially as #159 is his first response to Geoff. Okay, so it appears you're not talking about this thread. Obviously I've missed something. Now it's time to review your record, in order to figure out what I'm missing. Already acccounted for are #151 and 159, so let's work back from there. Ah ... I think I might see, but it still doesn't match. In #150, you accuse a "blatant personal attack" by PJdude in #144, but it isn't a response to Geoff; it's aimed at you. Hmm ... I need to think here. Okay, through the rest of the posts: #139 is between you and Joe, and your juxtaposition of the latter with Sandy. #141 is insubstantia; #151 doesn't offer any specific details. #155, is where I'm at in my discussion with you. Yeah, I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Nothing points me to PJ's response to Geoff in this thread or any other. I do, however, see your lament at #150, but that's about PJ's address of you, not Geoff. So ... right. I can do the thinking for you, which you resent, or maybe you could do us the favor of pointing us to PJ's response to Geoff. I admit, the irony of your complaint isn't lost on me. ____________________ Correction: Previously, I had stated that over seven thousand of Sandy's posts were still in general circulation. I have revised that statement to "nearly eight thousand", as the official number is 7,926. Additionally, a simple typographical error has been corrected, changing "and" to "an".