You know what they say : " If You Don't Have Anything Good To Say; Then Don't Say Nothing At All " .......................................................
You stepped up assuming I was bluffing. I wasn’t, and now you deflect instead of acknowledging the undeniable. It’s really that simple. If the action is what matters, the number of posts Bucki has made SINCE is meaningless; this isn’t that hard to understand. But hey, whatever diverts attention from the fact that a guy who actually tried to take legal action against the forum, a guy the owner was sufficiently concerned about to start a thread on the matter, was allowed to remain a member. Take as you will, but this is unquestionable and undeniable reality. Again, it’s really that simple.
For all of you that don't realize it Rick used a double negative which translates to mean the opposite of what some of you thought he said...
It really isn't that simple. You have no idea what happened between the owners/moderators of the site and the guy with 11 posts. Furthermore, his complaint involved a monetized column, not simply a photograph used to embarrass on egotistical member of the forum. Your guy is not a contributing member of this forum and never has been. His complaint was a valid one regarding copyright infringement. Bellman was a loon who was constantly pushing the boundaries of forum rules and threatening the forum with legal action was almost certainly the last straw. And since you want to discuss undeniable reality. Let's look at some facts. The James Bucki incident that Peter Davis posted about was in 2013. The first of his 11 posts was made in 2015. It is likely that Peter and company don't even know that he is a member of the forum. Or maybe they see that he has made 11 posts in 6 years and don't even care.
You're right it is that simple. But as you often do with many other things, you are misinterpreting what it means. What it means is making a threat to sue unless copyright is enforced is NOT going to get you banned from the forum. Why not ? Because we routinely enforce copyright anyway - even without being asked to do so ! But anytime anyone does ask, we gladly do it. It seems that what you're trying to do Books is to claim that there is discriminatory enforcement of the forum rules. And are using Bucki and Kurt as an example. Problem is, your example does not serve because as I stated earlier no member has ever been banned from this forum for threatening to sue the forum. However, many members have been banned from this forum for repeatedly breaking the forum rules. Even after having been warned that if they break the rules one more time they will be permanently banned.
I messaged with him last night... he has a new assignment from his boss so he's up to his eyeballs in work. He's planning a fall trip to the old course (St. Andrews) and some other sites in the UK (Royal Mint and the Bloomsbury Coin Fair). No indication he missing all y'all except to critique my choice of words about this thread as redundant (CoinTalk and Chuckelheads).