shrap said:
Dont be vague David, if you are going to make some kind of accusations about people, their character and integrity at least be man enough to be specific.
Gee Sammy, I didn't think my comment was vague. I guess I need to be more clear for some involved. You see Sammy, I am man enough to stand by my beliefs (regardless of what others think - I’ll comment more on that later), and I believe that when someone is devious, as I believe Kelli, Marcia and the rest of the conniving bleating sheep followers were being just that. The claim of it being a test run sounds like a farce when the thread remained open and was allowed to continue how many days after it was brought to Rich’s attention? Sorry Sammy, if you think that someone who would attempt to take members, some of which were paying members, not to mention the possible future paying members, hence income to Rich, is acceptable. To me it is NOT an acceptable way to conduct business. Are devious and deceitful business practices something you condone Sammy? I’ll tell you what Sammy, you start a discoid forum, make me your moderator and I’ll bash you and your site on my new discoid site and then tell me that I am someone whom you would do business with in the future and refer me to others with confidence.
shrap said:
And just because someone has been banned from this site, it is in no way an indicator of their character or integrity.
I disagree and have explained above.
shrap said:
There have been plenty of legit bannings and some that were simply the result of PERSONAL CONFLICT with the site admin. I think anyone that has been here any length of time knows that it was the latter that resulted in Kelli and Marcia getting banned.
I would say that they (as well as the others) made their own choice. Rich previously stated this:
WebSlave said:
Anyone who appears to be on this site for no other reason but to find ways to be destructive here and cause as much damage as they possibly can with no positive redeeming qualities in return will simply be removed.
They were initially banned and subsequently allowed to return and made their own decision to get banned, just as anybody else may choose to do in the future.
shrap said:
But we all know that you are a man of such high integrity and character that you would never insinuate that it could be for anything else. Dont we?
Why thank you for the compliment Sammy. As I stated earlier “I am man enough to stand by my beliefs (regardless of what others think.” When I first left negative votes for Kelli and the others there were many who followed suit. I, as I would only guess the others were too, was asked by someone, whom I have respect for (and still do) and thought had respect for me as well (hopefully still does), to rescind my negative votes. I stated why I would not, but left the option of reconsideration open depending on how the events played out. There were a number of people who rescinded their votes and very few who did not. Now I may have lost the respect of someone who I would not have wanted to, but I’m not going to go against what I believe to be right just so someone will like me.
shrap said:
This site has a membership littered with known scammers, thieves and just plain old fashioned scumbags. Yet they have never been banned. So dont insinuate that simply getting banned from this site alone is a reflection upon any persons character, David.
Yet the character of said persons was a result in them getting banned from this site. Did I say it was the sole reason? No, I did not. You could add the inability to follow rules set forth here as a contributing factor as well.
shrap said:
Because we all know that would be nothing more than a lie. Dont we, David?
Do we now Sammy? Your choice of looking at something obviously differs from mine, yet I’m not calling you a liar, nor am I attempting to question if you are man enough to back up what you have said. I would appreciate you giving me the same respect that I am extending to you.
