There you go again, thinking everything is political. Hint: it's not, neither in all circumstances, nor in this particular instance. Also, Castle's position, which I agree you articulate better than him, is flawed, because behavior has always been ultimately under the approval of ownership. How could it be any other way?
Hey, I know! Maybe someone else can start a message board so Castle can act out 24/7 on his dime. That whole thing about private ownership and all...
To be honest, I think the Castle affair has pretty much run it's course now, particularly with Castle making an absolute joke of himself on FB and pretty much exhausting any energy anyone may originally had for defending him over his banning.
You need to get your facts right. He did breach the personal information rules, twice, in quick succession, shortly before his ban. There are no two ways about this and the proof was presented to the owners to show it so it is indisputable. My contention in this thread has simply been that he got away with it and didn't get banned as a result. What's more, he contention that others get away with such offenses isn't true. Years ago, when I got baited into cryptically revealing Muad's name I got banned. End of. My argument was that Anc's pride and manipulation over the "are you threatening WF" seemed more important to the owners than the twice over breach of the personal information rule that got people banned in the past. But, make no mistake, Castle is not the poor innocent he's pretending to be. Don't be suckered into believing his hysterics just because you don't like Anc & Gul.
Honestly, I don't think there are any blameless parties here. We have the PI angle (and I think Castle's mistargeting his aim at Chup regarding this go around [the AV troll]) We have the alleged Anc's ego/baited question angle and, where Castle does have a valid point but also exacerbated by his own actions, the chicken-and-egg angle with those that continuously shit up a thread he's posted, constructively or no.
