Re: apology to Paul

["Whooooo!" <whoooo@labyrinth.net>]

    Look, I don't want to keep re-posting about this.   I  simply want to state
that I disagree wholeheartedly with your casual assertion, and I stand by the
substance of my post.  The fact of the matter is that people began hitting Fang
left and right, and some of them used this list to communicate and encourage
segments of the hit.  In addition, Fang himself admitted that a personal
controversy arose between him and Matt shortly before. As a result of both of
these things, I assume Matt made the decision to go to Pete for action. Once
they decided to get him out, there existed plenty of "rationalizations" upon
which ouster could be based.
    Look, I'm a lawyer, so I think I understand better than many how the
decision to act is distinct from the reasons cited for it. It is always hard to
divorce politics from principle.  Judges behave like this every day, and so do
people in general. It is interesting to note that this decision sort of came out
like a court opinion. It's as if God Himself appeared on the day of judgment and
rendered unto the Fanged Caesar. Kinda makes you wonder why they felt that "the
fang situation" needed that kind of attention in the first place. Pete himself
admitted that other people were banned, and they didn't get a public verdict
letter. Fang was clearly a problem to them for a number of reasons, and, well,
it appears that a public mugging was the chosen method exorcism..
    My post had a basis in fact and was not the cause of the decision to banish
Fang, no matter how strong your revisionary impulse may be.
    I still wish that Fang would have been "corrected" with a suspension. I
still hope they let him back in. I think he would not bite anyone on THAT site
if he was given a second chance.