After finding and reading the thread, I can see why. Immediately following a brief and concise post that explained the situation, you posted a PC rant based on totally incorrect assumptions.
I didn’t see enzali post until later. Note the time 2:42
Mine was 2:45. I was typing my post at the same time he posted.
I wish that I had seen it. Mine would have been more neutral.
How is this in any way relevant to your warning? And why didn’t you read the very short article that was posted?
It’s not, but you gotta admit, it’s interesting.
In case anyone isn’t aware, this is also being discussed in the last page of this Pit thread.
While aceplace57 disregarded moderator instructions, I feel it was a bit harsh that he was disallowed from posting in the thread (although, it has to be said, I generally favor a lighter touch to moderation). aceplace57 was responding to the O.P., which was factually incorrect and misleading. I don’t see anything wrong with arguing that James Bond should be played by a white man, as that is how the character was conceived in the original source material.
They’re calling you… FROM INSIDE YOUR HOUSE! :eek:
Yes, there was some mistaken information in the first post. Which was corrected in the second post. aceplace57’s contribution to the thread consisted entirely of raving against Bond being played by a black woman, while eventually conceding that it would be OK if a black woman were 007, and then going right back to raving against them making Bond a black woman, even while people were repeatedly trying to point out to him that what he was raving against didn’t exist.
I also favor a lighter touch to moderation, which is why I acted as I did. I saw that the thread was developing problems. I could have closed down the thread entirely. I could have started issuing Warnings right there. But I saw that most of the problems were centered around aceplace57, in one way or the other, and so the discussion could be salvaged by simply removing the source of the problems. I expected that the threat of a warning would be enough. I was wrong.
Ok. Then he could have done what any reasonable person would do in that situation which is start an ATMB thread to discuss the note as opposed to starting one after violating the very clear instructions in that note.
Yes, that would have been the correct course of action.
The mod instructions centered around you continuing to derail the thread because you willfully refused to read things carefully and understand them.
And your defense to the Warning is that you didn’t read the mod instructions carefully and understand them?
I would take an instruction not to return to a thread as an instruction not to post again in the thread; not as an instruction not to ever read the thread again.
Am I wrong about that? Does ‘do not return to this thread’ mean ‘do not read this thread again?’
The mod note referenced the post just before mine.
enzali and I were both responding to the misleading OP. Even the thread title is misleading.
enzali wrote a great post btw.
This thread has got some jokers in it.
The one that told you not to post in the thread again?
And one Imperial Bower.
That’s the difference between “and” and “or”. The instructions said don’t spread your disinterest AND don’t return to the thread.
Had they said don’t spread your disinterest OR don’t return to the thread, it would have been different.
You were given a list of things to do, not a set of options of which to choose from.
It didn’t seem that oddly worded to me.
I already explained that I thought that instruction was conditional on whether I continued arguing my point.
Look at the two posts afterwards. I dropped any argument completely.
At least I’m safe inside my head. 
…based on absolutely nothing that the mod said. The mod issued a clear instruction. “Do not return to this thread.” No ifs, ors or buts were attached to that sentence. You ignored it. You got warned. That was a perfectly valid thing for a mod to do.