#1 I am confused - how am I labelling and who is "the other side"? I didn't think SCN had side - points of views definitely. How does Richard's statement have anything to do with my comment?
Are you implying that I am accusing you or do you mean as a community we don't accuse. Again, I am finding your response to have a bit of a confrontational undertone. Again, I'm trying to put it down to written communication can be misunderstood compared to face to face when you don't have the additional cues of tone and body language.
If you think I have accused you of ranting I was purely quoting your words
#2. How do you draw such a conclusion? For your thread (and Richard's) I have commented to specifics In Richard's case I saw the entire thread as I received the email notifications. In both cases I quoted the comments so answered with context. in doing this, members could correct me if I took a statement out of context. I am still wondering how my comments led you to assume that you are "against all moderation"
the RoE is explicit in SCN's position on copyright. The website is allegedly known to take SAP material without approval. Therefore, it's implied that linking to the site is copyright issue. Mathew Billingham has already commented above as to how that was meant to be interpreted - ie you didn't know that but now you do.