Fraggle: Are you serious?
Huge dog pictures are often Photo-shopped.
This one looks odd. Look at the background.
Or am I saying something that's obvious to everyone?
Sorry if I haven't got the joke.
Let's look at his 'insult'.
He besmirches photos of huge dogs. If he is incorrect about his assertion about photos of huge dogs or if one simply feels he needs to support this assertion, he could be challenged to provide support for his assertion.
He says the photo looks odd. Indicates the background.
He then asks if others are reacting the same way.
Then he wonders if he hasn't gotten the joke. LIke maybe he is taking the OP seriously when others realize it is meant to be funny.
I took this to mean he thought Cosmic was either playing around or passing on the playing around of other people.
AND HE WASN'T EVEN SURE. He asked for help in determining if his reactions were correct.
CK did not insult or mention Cosmic as far as I can tell. It seemed like he was trying to determine if this odd looking photo and article was part of a JOKE.
You enter the fray and show at least a similar level of misunderstanding of the OP, assuming a photo of Cosmic was now on the thread.
You then accuse CK of insulting Cosmic. A radically uncharitable misinterpretation and an accusation in itself. It seemed to me he was confused by the OP, wondered if it was a joke that others were getting. It is not clear at all that he even thinks that Cosmic is trying to fool anyone. He could just as easily have thought that Cosmic was falling for a hoax. He never accused Cosmic of anything.
He expressed uncertainty, asked for feedback from others, explained why he was tending in one direction. Then in a second post expressed more certainty.
Note: the background is odd. As a photographer my first reaction is that the lens was possibly wide angle, and certainly the angle was chosen to distort the view of the dog. IOW there was good foundation for skepticism.
On the other hand you accused CK of something he did not do: insult Cosmic. At the very least some questioning was necessary before assuming his reactions were meant as insults.
I think you broke the rules you thought CK did, partly driven to this reaction due to your incorrect interpretation of the OP.
In a forum called free thoughts no less. CK expressed thoughts about a photo and none about Cosmic.
Sure, there could be situations where such thoughts about someone's evidence of something could be an insult, but frankly it reads more like he thinks this is maybe a joke not a hoax or some serious attempt to deceive. And nowhere is it clear he thought Cosmic was the deceiver.
If in Free Thoughts someone presented a photoshopped image of a huge fish - and it turned out to a joke, but one that effectively fooled some people - would that be immoral? Or could it be a joke, playing around with people in a FORUM CLEARLY DESIGNATED FOR NOT SO SERIOUS TOPICS AND LESS RIGOROUS EXPECTATIONS and a good deal of playing around.
You needed to do more research into CK's possible insult before insulting him, let alone banning him.
I suggest you ban yourself for one day as a gesture of good faith and to be consistent with your own criteria for banning.
