[Formendacil]

Let me state quite clearly that I think Davem was wrongly told to leave the “Lord of the Bible” thread, if it was done so on the basis of his opinion being that “the Lord of the Rings has nothing in it that is provably Christian”. I happen to agree with that statement fully, and I would dispute that it is “just and fair” to allow anyone to disagree with this on the simple grounds of “opinion”. Tolkien himself said that there was no allegory- said it in the Foreword itself- and there is NOTHING in the book that can only be Christian in its meaning.

Davem believes himself banished for holding this opinion. If this is not the case, it has taken too long for that to come out.

If the truth is that Davem was banned for his arrogance and stubbornness and rudeness in steadfastly holding to this opinion, then I will grant that these were legitimate grounds for banishment. Whether or not these conditions were met is another matter. Stubbornness, for what it is worth, was and is pretty much a cross-forum problem. There is no reason here to single Davem out. If it comes down to arrogance, to “my opinion simply trumps everyone elses”, then I would say that there should have been some deeper looking into WHAT that opinion was. As it so happens, Davem’s opinion that Tolkien’s work CANNOT be shoehorned into any particular meaning is not only a justifiable one, but the one Tolkien himself had. Very tenuous grounds here for banishment. Finally, rudeness.

Here, Davem may have overstepped the line. His sarcasm, there is no denying, can be caustic. That said, rudeness is the most subjective of the criteria given. It’s essentially “tone”. What is rude to one person may be honesty to another. Davem avers, and I can only agree with from what I say, that he never intended, or made, a PERSONAL attack on users, but simply on their positions. My reading of his posts is that this statement is true. There is, I would agree, a sense of frustration about Davem in his later posts on the “Lord of the Bible” thread, but I think that’s only natural if you were trying, again and again and again, to show that the ocean is wet.

The other major issue surrounding Davem’s banishment is that of warnings. Davem states that after he returned from his first, temporary banishment, he received only one real warning from the Mods, from Mister Underhill (simultaneously in the “Lord of the Bible” thread and by PM), to get off the “Lord of the Bible” thread (and, presumably implied, the topic as well). And Davem DID get off the thread- and familiar as we all are with Davem’s stubborn-as-a-mule ability to stick with an argument, this can ONLY be construed as obedience to what the Mods requested.

From what I understand, Davem believes he received one, real warning after his temporary banishment, which he complied to (see above paragraph). This can be reconciled to the Administration's statement of him having received multiple warnings by recognising that these warnings (I assume they were given) either came BEFORE the temporary ban, and were so assumed forgiven by the rescinding of the ban, or else were given in a manner that did NOT make itself clear to be an official warning. And if a warning is not clearly made official, in my opinion, then you have no right to complain if it's not followed.

My verdict therefore, in this entire matter of Davem’s banishment: Davem was unjustly banned. Do I think the Mods are evil, self-satisfying, Davem-hating, power-mongering beasts? No. But I do think there was an error in judgement. And I can easily see how this would happen.