It is true that the link I provided, if properly parsed (I have now corrected the format), shows that you charged him with abuse and we both replied directly, very shortly after; only one other comment separates these three in the public comments log. I could use a tool to determine how many minutes it was between your charging abuse by comment and your escalating to the deleted post, but that would require server time and would not be an immediately answered request. So I think it's fair to say generally that "while we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post". If you're taking it from us to the body, that is escalation by definition. After CIAMM replied as visible in the link ("Your charge of abuse is laughably baseless ...."), we saw the post and made the deletion decision in further reply, while keeping dialogue open to test developments. The fact that you could've stayed in the thread rather than escalating is not that important; the nature of the charges (hasty mod accusations) being Biblically different from any other issue you've taken to the community via new post is important. (This applies not only as to elders but also as to general Scriptures about respect for leaders.)
I grant that your second nearly identical post was in response to our deletion of your first post, but the specifications in your first post were not in response to their own deletion. You specified by using four of our quotes, of which we don't know the exact initial links, but of which we've already self-deleted two candidates based on your partial assistance. So I said "without evidence" meaning without links to establish which comment(s) you were interpreting from what era. Whenever you accuse someone on the net of a quote, use links if it's not obvious!
I don't know what you mean about anathemata and it does not appear directly related to resolution. Yes, you have "checked the authority" under the ordinary check/balance system whereby you are exerting your appeal rights and we are working toward restitution acceptable to you, including standing policy changes. This does not appear to be anything special.
I grant that you were sincere in your post, but telling the truth requires facts, and the attribution of opinion to the opiner. Here's my quick analysis. Title, "not confined", judgment. Sentence 1, "false witness", generalized charge to be proven. 2, four quotes (five words) charging double standard in deletion; evidence that might be backed up by research, but no evidence that it applies to deletion as stated (I later provided links that might be judged later as backing up this claim, but you didn't even bother at first to state the context e.g. "a couple weeks ago"). 3, your knowledge of warning policy, supportive to claim but speculative. 4, "abuse of power" and comparison to a certain political party, opinion stated as fact, and politics are off-topic. 5, "mashers run their mouths etc.", colorable but basically opinion stated as fact. 6, "their church", and 7, "closer to your bishop", here is the plain false statement because my church doesn't use the title "bishop" and (as I determined from the context of your earlier and later general discussions) your implication is that CIAMM has an RCC bishop, also false. 8, Scripture, "soft answer", applies to us all.
The charge that we are both of the same church and that this church thinks it is God's personal spokesperson, supported by allusion to bishops, is thus a demonstrably false charge, disqualifying your post from being fully "telling the truth". The remainder escapes when colored in the best light, but imagine coloring it in the worst light.
Accordingly, your statement "This is not true", your implication "I told the truth" and nothing but, and your implication that your first charge "Not Confined ... was in direct response to ... deletion" of the post, have each been demonstrated to be inaccurate. That's not too relevant, it's just correcting the record. I'd like to proceed to analyzing your comments and listing the grievances reasonably implied or inferred, as you seem to have completed your list and are cycling your past grievances along with the treatment you're getting in this thread. I'm hopeful we can be circumspect enough not to accumulate new grievances while seeking to answer the old.
I am thankful the spirit of confusion has left.
It is true that the link I provided, if properly parsed (I have now corrected the format), shows that you charged him with abuse and we both replied directly, very shortly after; only one other comment separates these three in the public comments log. I could use a tool to determine how many minutes it was between your charging abuse by comment and your escalating to the deleted post, but that would require server time and would not be an immediately answered request. So I think it's fair to say generally that "while we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post". If you're taking it from us to the body, that is escalation by definition. After CIAMM replied as visible in the link ("Your charge of abuse is laughably baseless ...."), we saw the post and made the deletion decision in further reply, while keeping dialogue open to test developments. The fact that you could've stayed in the thread rather than escalating is not that important; the nature of the charges (hasty mod accusations) being Biblically different from any other issue you've taken to the community via new post is important. (This applies not only as to elders but also as to general Scriptures about respect for leaders.)
I grant that your second nearly identical post was in response to our deletion of your first post, but the specifications in your first post were not in response to their own deletion. You specified by using four of our quotes, of which we don't know the exact initial links, but of which we've already self-deleted two candidates based on your partial assistance. So I said "without evidence" meaning without links to establish which comment(s) you were interpreting from what era. Whenever you accuse someone on the net of a quote, use links if it's not obvious!
I don't know what you mean about anathemata and it does not appear directly related to resolution. Yes, you have "checked the authority" under the ordinary check/balance system whereby you are exerting your appeal rights and we are working toward restitution acceptable to you, including standing policy changes. This does not appear to be anything special.
I grant that you were sincere in your post, but telling the truth requires facts, and the attribution of opinion to the opiner. Here's my quick analysis. Title, "not confined", judgment. Sentence 1, "false witness", generalized charge to be proven. 2, four quotes (five words) charging double standard in deletion; evidence that might be backed up by research, but no evidence that it applies to deletion as stated (I later provided links that might be judged later as backing up this claim, but you didn't even bother at first to state the context e.g. "a couple weeks ago"). 3, your knowledge of warning policy, supportive to claim but speculative. 4, "abuse of power" and comparison to a certain political party, opinion stated as fact, and politics are off-topic. 5, "mashers run their mouths etc.", colorable but basically opinion stated as fact. 6, "their church", and 7, "closer to your bishop", here is the plain false statement because my church doesn't use the title "bishop" and (as I determined from the context of your earlier and later general discussions) your implication is that CIAMM has an RCC bishop, also false. 8, Scripture, "soft answer", applies to us all.
The charge that we are both of the same church and that this church thinks it is God's personal spokesperson, supported by allusion to bishops, is thus a demonstrably false charge, disqualifying your post from being fully "telling the truth". The remainder escapes when colored in the best light, but imagine coloring it in the worst light.
Accordingly, your statement "This is not true", your implication "I told the truth" and nothing but, and your implication that your first charge "Not Confined ... was in direct response to ... deletion" of the post, have each been demonstrated to be inaccurate. That's not too relevant, it's just correcting the record. I'd like to proceed to analyzing your comments and listing the grievances reasonably implied or inferred, as you seem to have completed your list and are cycling your past grievances along with the treatment you're getting in this thread. I'm hopeful we can be circumspect enough not to accumulate new grievances while seeking to answer the old.