Jim,
You stated with regard to the Sept thread:
Chamco said:
You signed your name to it, and supported it in later posts.
and
Chamco said:
I think that the September thread shows that I also know how it feels to be pulled in to the mud... and you signed it Chris.
If you could please indicate to me where my name is signed on that post, I’d appreciate it. Yes, I absolutely supported it in later posts but did not sign my name to it as you claim.
You also stated that you felt the attempts to bring me up and pull me into this thread was equivalent to how you were brought up in the Sept thread. The major difference I see is that in the Sept thread, your named was signed on the data presented and you were publicly presented as a business partner (right or wrong). As a result, there seemed to be due cause to involve you. In this situation, my name never appeared as a partner in the issue, only as a poster who agreed with the original post.
You compared my posting in the Sept issue to my not posting in this issue as a double standard, questioning why I’d choose to post in one and not the other. If you look back at the Sept thread, you’ll notice I posted under a couple different situations. The first post, which is what brought me into the discussion, was when I felt I had something to add in my disagreement with the posts of another uninvolved BOI user. I then only posted when I felt I had come across evidence in relation to the thread or when I was directly referred to. As I have not felt my posting in the current thread would add anything, I’ve not posted. I fail to see the double standard or how this is damning to me.
You also stated the following:
Chamco said:
Note too Chris, that no one has put your name into a BOI header "Chris Anderson, questionable ethics", much less text, although there are references, which I admit are obviously attempts to ask people to evaluate what appears to many as an overt double standard on your part.
You’ve no more put my name into the text of the current BOI thread then I would if I bashed you on there as “the owner of The Chameleon Company.” My point is you’re full of it if you think it wasn’t blatant and if you think you would be anything other than pissed about it.
I would like to apologize if I failed to retract my Sept allegations to your liking. I attempted to discuss with you why I posted what I did in my posts rather than make empty apologies. I’ve made no bones about the fact since that I see a single individual as the primary problem in the situation that occurred. At the time I seem to remember deciding it would be better to handle it that way rather than bring the thread back to the front page of the BOI as I believe it was falling off the board at that point.
Finally, you and Matt have repeatedly alleged that I authored the post in Sept with Matt using as his backing evidence that Dennis told him so. Dennis just stated above, that Matt’s claims about him talking about John and I were untrue. This is the second time in this thread that Matt has claimed to have been told something by someone yet when that individual posts, it turns out that Matt is simply a liar. I have addressed Matt’s accusations repeatedly with him in the series of emails we exchanged that I posted previously in this thread. I’d appreciate in the future, as I know you would appreciate it too in my situation, if you’d avoid taking similar claims from Matt as fact without seeing for yourself that it is backed by anything. It seems obvious just how reliable and truthful he is in this regard.
At this point, I’m really tired of being involved with this feud. Now that I’ve addressed you’re concerns Jim, I’d appreciate if we all could move on about this, it doesn’t accomplish much of anything.
Regards,
Chris
