Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

No, it makes it an accurate picture of how paying members view a company, not necessarily reality. And as for the claim that paying members are biased, I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias. Another example would be several "regulars" standing up for a company they knew only by reputation (as they could not recognize the owner from several clear pics of him doing something that is clearly not safe or ethical) and berating a kid for not apologizing, and then themselves not apologizing when the situation became crystal clear.

You are either full of complete BS, a troll, ignorant of reality or brainwashed by your TRR girlfriends.

Bill was questioned, proof compiled and then he admitted it. How many "vigorously" asked questions do you need to ask a man that has pleaded guilty? He killed himself in this business to any and all reputable people. Yep that is biased.

And as far as NERD goes, the reason the kid caught some flack in the beginning is because he was posting all of this as second hand info and when asked for clarification he said it was not his problem. If you accuse people of stuff you should damn well be ready to answer any questions people have about your accusations.

You have done a fine job of trying to twist all of that to suit your conspiracy theory, but in the end it is still just your fantasy. Not reality.

I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias.

I normally get to the end of a thread before adding my opinion, but I felt like adding something here.

I think that there is a misconception here that needs to be clarified.

Let's look at an example:

Member A is a "nobody" and also a bad guy, and vehemently denies this, heaping lies, insults, and whining complaints of cliques one on top of the other on top of the other. He gets torn to absolute shreds.

Member B is a bad guy, but somebody that is considered a good guy until his crime is exposed. While he tries to cover it up in the beginning, it is not very long at all before he confesses to his crime. He does not heap insults, try to cover it up beyond the first effort, does not denigrate the membership, he takes his lumps and is meek about it. He gets torn to shreds by some of the members, but others stop the feeding frenzy short of ripping him to bits.

NOW.... this looks like preferential behaviour to some... and infact sparks them to a huge further feeding frenzy and accusations of favoritism.

Frankly, I see no reason to continue to rip apart someone who has already kneeled at my feet with his jugular exposed saying: "Rip out my throat". Where's the fun in that? Where's the justice?

People THINK they see favoritism because Member B has not been torn to shreds... but he hasn't DONE the same things that Member A did. See the Pete Perez thread(s) or other threads of some of the most notorious bad guys out there... they don't ever confess their guilt, at least not with ten other unconfessed crimes waiting to be pulled out of the woodwork. They slam the membership, they creep, skulk, and slime their way aroiund the board, and are justifiably torn to shreds. And when people see this doesn't happen to Member B they think they see something that just isn't there.

Anyway, this was my sudden revelation. I think I see why people see favoritism when it isn't there. Sorry if my post was repetetive... and someone else already probably pointed this out. Now I'll go finish reading the thread.

I suspect, may be wrong but I don't think so, that when this is brought up it is directed more towards me than anyone else.

The Quote:
Quote:
I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias.


I think that those of you who want to tell ME, or anyone else for that matter but mostly ME, what to do and how I should do it, who I should ream a new one for, you who wish to make me act a certain way or NOT act a certain way to satisfy your own needs, to you I say, once again, PISS OFF.

I do not play favorites.

There IS something not quite right about clearwater. When I know, if I ever know, what it is THEN I will decide whether or not I acted as I should with him.

WHO THE HELL ARE ANY OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO THINK???

I decide each and every INDIVIDUAL time what I will do and why I am doing it. You arrogant nimrods have no clue and until you get one or two would be better off remaining silent instead of proving old sayings true.

NOW, if ANYONE has a problem with how I handled Bill, feel free to start a thread about it and if I think you've got a point I'll join in. But, ASSuming that favoritism is in practice, that bias is in effect and widespread, well, you're wrong. Not for the first time apparently but hopefully one of the last for at least the near future.

Now, what was this thread about again?

Originally Posted by sirenofthestorm

Wendy, real quick, what I meant by that was "anyone, regardless of whether they have or have not done business with the business they're voting on." Does that make it clearer?

Yes, it makes it clearer, but still leaves unanswered about how limiting votes to actual business transactions could possibly be enforced. Just how exactly would you recommend that this be done? Have you read my previous arguments about why, even if this were feasible, that I do not think it would be the best avenue to take? My opinion has not changed since I posted that argument.

As for your choosing not to pay the minimum $10 membership fee, that is fine with me. Everyone here is welcome to make their own choices based on what they want to get out of this site.

Originally Posted by Jim O

Wendy, when Rich made his changes to the site after his "affair" with Chris he very briefly opened it up to all registered members.

Thank you, an answer.

It looked really shady that nonpaying members could vote up until the time it was decided that you didn't have to have a business dealing w/a person to cast a vote and then poof, only paying members can vote.

Karen,

That NEVER changed. Read what Rich wrote. It was NEVER intended to require a transaction.

I've read it, unless he's changed it in the last day it does not specifically say that.

Print the EXACT sentence where it says you DON'T have to have a transaction.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

I've read it, unless he's changed it in the last day it does not specifically say that.

Print the EXACT sentence where it says you DON'T have to have a transaction.

Print the EXACT sentence where it EVER said that tyou HAD to.

Originally Posted by shrap

You are either full of complete BS, a troll, ignorant of reality or brainwashed by your TRR girlfriends.

Bill was questioned, proof compiled and then he admitted it. How many "vigorously" asked questions do you need to ask a man that has pleaded guilty? He killed himself in this business to any and all reputable people. Yep that is biased.

And as far as NERD goes, the reason the kid caught some flack in the beginning is because he was posting all of this as second hand info and when asked for clarification he said it was not his problem. If you accuse people of stuff you should damn well be ready to answer any questions people have about your accusations.

You have done a fine job of trying to twist all of that to suit your conspiracy theory, but in the end it is still just your fantasy. Not reality.

Excellent Quote above. Worthy of quoting just to see it again.

I could not have said it better.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

I've read it, unless he's changed it in the last day it does not specifically say that.

Print the EXACT sentence where it says you DON'T have to have a transaction.

Hmm, you are right. And I also never specifically stated that you cannot live outside of the planet Earth, or cannot have green colored hair, either.....