My own opinion is that when Mods cannot be unbiased then it's not a surprise so many people do not use this forum. Bazza from where I am standing, with a completely neutral point of view, your attitude comes over as if you disagree with me you are wrong.
And Bazza, you are part of the moderation team, and in my opinion you have set a very poor example. As said you should have remained unbiased. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but as a moderator you represent this forum.
my annoyance with you there was that you chose to add in the "rolleyes" which at the very least I would regard as a patronising stance, I dont mean to be patronising in response but might I suggest that you fish out a dictionary and have a look at the definition of the word "moderator" at your earliest convenience
Biased? I am a moderator - I am also a member. I am quite entitled to put forward any opinion I like which is not offensive. I have even supported his getting a Mazda! Merely suggested he should look into a few things. The only person who has at any point attacked Lee I told in no uncertain terms to stop it. Can you point out the bias? What exact thing did I say which should not have been allowed? I would honestly love you to tell me, so that I can either understand how a misinterpretation has happened, explain why I think you have taken something I have said wrongly, or realise a mistake I have made. As it stands, all you appear to be saying is that as a moderator I am not allowed to express an opinion (I can hold it, but not tell people what it is?) If so, I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken about what 'moderator' means.
If you can point out a single instance where I have acted in any way offensively towards Lee and his decision, I will unreservedly apologise. But I don't think you will.
MS - I do sincerely apologise for the rolleyes, they were a mistake and (as you point out) made the post more patronising in tone than it was intended to be - but I see this happen again and again, and it gets very wearing:
Originally Posted by forum to blame
X posts a thread about another marque.
Y posts slagging off that other marque.
X and Y have an argument which gets pointlessly heated.
Suddenly various people wade in, attribute Ys argument to the entire forum (or a 'large element' of it), declare X the victim of a hate crime (despite him giving as good as he got) and suddenly we all have to act contrite because 'Alfa Owner' has been horrible about another marque.
Yes, GeeTeeVee was wrong to react as strongly as he did. I see he's now apologised for that and I don't see why that shouldn't be the end of the matter. But it's been blown out of all proportion since.
Here's my posts so far on this thread, and how they were intended.
1st: Warning about wear on short journeys.
2nd: Advise to check other forums to ensure dealer isn't fibbing.
3rd: Suggested that a lot of the stated costs might be a bit harsh to hold against the car. Also pointed out that people should not post nastily about Lee choosing to leave the marque
- but also pointed out that they were quite within their rights to say they disagreed with his reasoning.
4th: Asked again for the arguing to stop.
Tried to explain further my point that some of the costs you were stating were costs that would be found with any car - although I made a point of saying that I quite understood your position.
5th: Again asked Geeteevee to stop slagging of Mazdas.
7th: Defending Rollyeyes-gate.
And yet I'm coming out of that labelled as biased? The only thing I've said against your move is that you might be being a bit unfair on the car when listing the costs.
I've also asked you to calm down as well when I asked GeeTeeVee. Is that the sign of bias? Because surely if I asked only him and not you, that would have been more so?
I would genuinely appreciate you telling me exactly which thing I posted particularly riled you - I'd prefer to learn from these occasions than not. But otherwise I guess I'll leave you to it. If you wish to think of me as a bad moderator, that's your prerogative.