The People's Choice

Mike can certainly speak for himself, but I think he was talking about Bobby's reply to my post arguing that the points were warranted, regardless of who issued them.

They weren't warranted, and if they are, then Bobby needs points, too.

He may not have done it personally, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what happened here.

Originally Posted by varnyard

Mike you are a good friend, I will always listen to your advice. However, I do not see where I moderated him anywhere in this thread. If he got hit by points, it was not by me.

He stated his opinion and I stated mine, nothing more.

IF he got hit??? You know darn well he did or you wouldn't have argued that it was warranted.

Clear as mud; clear as mud, indeed.

I think shrilly, er benny, has succeeded once again.

Use the IGNORE feature people, it does wonders.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

I think shrilly, er benny, has succeeded once again.

Use the IGNORE feature people, it does wonders.

Wes,
Just curious. What is it that makes you think that Ben Martin is Shrillomn?

Timing of appearances. Attitudes. My extreme dislike of both. The gut speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by SoulSmilen

IF he got hit??? You know darn well he did or you wouldn't have argued that it was warranted.

Clear as mud; clear as mud, indeed.

Well Denise, you seem, to know more than me. I do see he got hit now, but only after it was pointed out.

You guys are too funny, now I am a hit man.

Denise, you are right about one thing. Mud is mud indeed. It always shows up when someone downs Fauna, no secret there. Is that right Denise?

Mike the apologies excepted!! It is just the same twist often thrown to the proof here at Fauna.

Also Denise, do show me where I argued that it was warranted on this thread. Or for that matter was not. The warnings he got from me he deserved, they were for profanity on a different thread. If you read this like you say you have, you would know this.

Bobby, since my original post was about THIS thread and you replied to it talking about other threads and his warnings being legit, I took it to mean you were arguing the warning for this thread was warranted, as I'm sure many others took it. There's no point in my debating this part with you any further because you'll twist it to mean what you want it to mean and I'll get warning points for Antagonism.

Originally Posted by varnyard

Well Denise, you seem, to know more than me. I do see he got hit now, but only after it was pointed out.

You guys are too funny, now I am a hit man.

You're the one that first used the term 'hit', so let's not bring more unneccessary drama into this and cry poor wolf so folks will feel sorry for you being associated with a hitman.

Originally Posted by varnyard

Denise, you are right about one thing. Mud is mud indeed. It always shows up when someone downs Fauna, no secret there. Is that right Denise?

Twisting and inferring again. You focus on the negative and conveniently leave out the rest, as always. In almost every (if not every) post I've made that wasn't so bright eyed and bushy tailed about Fauna, I have also expressed the positive aspects of the site and have said over and over that it is not all bad.

Originally Posted by varnyard

Mike the apologies excepted!! It is just the same twist often thrown to the proof here at Fauna.

It makes no difference who gave the warning points, Mike's words still hold true whether he intended it to be directed at you or not. There was no twist from anyone.

Well you can call it anything you see fit. The facts are, you were wrong.

As for someone giving warnings, you are 110% wrong about that too. I do not have any control over who gives them but me. I had nothing to do with any points he received on this thread.

IMO, he stated his opinion and I stated mine, nothing more.