Seven commented one time on my avatar. I don't remember the exact words, but the general meaning he wanted to convey was that my avatar was a feeble attempt to annoy him, he said that it didn't bother him one bit.
You on the other hand have commented on my avatar more than once, implying that i shouldn't have it.
Conclusion: It never annoyed Seven (at least thats what he claimed) but it does somehow bother you(at least enough for you to comment about it a number of times)
Result: I will be keeping it on purpose (At first it was because i was lazy, not anymore though.)
So lets say that it bothers me, it's provoking me and I find it insulting. Maybe Dule will say tomorrow that it bothers him too. Maybe more people will do the same.
What's the difference between this and what Seven was doing?
He was provoking you, it was bothering you. You are provoking me, it's bothering me.
Is there an end to this? Everyone can be provoked, bothered, insulted by anything, so why is only Seven banned?
Altair said that what's offensive to some should be offensive to all (well, it's not offensive to the offender, so there is a flaw in his statement). So when do we decide what's offensive and what deserves a ban?
If i'm offended by your avatar is it offensive to all? Should you be banned?
If you're offended by Seven's statements about Islam, is it offensive to all? Should he be banned?
If someone thinks logically over everything, then Seven MUST be unbanned, because if he isn't, you, Fred, will have to be banned. I am offended by your avatar.