Especially when retaliation (andbackbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest whentheyaren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proofof, complete with a conversation attached (one that isdisprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).
Especially when retaliation (and backbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest when they aren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proof of, complete with a conversation attached (one that is disprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).