The lack of empathy is evident in the way things have panned out in this thread.
For the record, I do not support the tone and tenor of most of Bulldozer2's threads. I had recorded my displeasure in the member's contest thread, which was subsequently deleted. I do not like the message posted in this thread either. That being said I think this thread should have been handled with some sensitivity.
Members retaliate because they think they have been wronged. Each one of us has a different temperament. What upsets me might not upset you. I may have a short fuse, and blow up easily. I may use logic in my arguments, while you might harp on your limited understanding of the subject. The thing is we are different and so are our reactions. I have time and again mentioned that we are wired differently, so we respond to different situations differently. But, in this case, those who are chaste in their views and who claim to be unbiased have failed miserably to balance their act.
The Webmaster's response above was gentle. He handled the author's ire with great maturity. A cue should have been taken from that. However, what happened consequently was utterly disappointing.
Assigning CC to a post that questions the author cannot be justified. Sorry to say, but this action just goes to highlight the biases and hypocrisy, which are the crux of this entire episode.
The author may have had a change of heart, and decided against posting the thread. Members may be right in questioning the author's failure to post the thread at the stipulated time. But, allotting CC to the member who counter-questioned the author was unnecessary. It looks like the author was wilfully shamed. It also appears that whoever allotted the CC wanted the author to post the thread. This in my view is fueling a fire.
Secondly, sometime back, a hue and cry was made over the use of the title of a legitimate song in response to a questionnaire. If the use of the song title was inappropriate in a thread that did not refer to any member, then how is it fair to allow the author of this post to be addressed in an offensive manner? Why are the ethics that were applied in that thread ignored here? The author of this thread may be wrong in standing up against the system, but it does not warrant a change of attitude and policies, especially in those who moralise everyone else, on conduct.
It is clear that things that are otherwise not condoned were applauded and allowed. This shows the double-standard that the author has been openly fighting against. A team that claims to be neutral should not have allowed such disparity.
Actions always speak louder than words, and this was a good time to let the author and everyone else take note of how 'just' the system is.
Please read my thread with an open mind, and see the truth behind what I have stated.
"A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak" - Michael Garrett Marino