Please check out this quote from KelliH:
In fact, I will go as far as to say that if there was no kingsnake.com H.I.S.S. would not exist.
I knew someone would post something like this. And it is going to prove the point I am trying to drive home here. Since you posted that, Kelli, let me ask you directly.
First, let us make some assumptions and clarifications:
(a) Jeffie knows the power he holds over peoples businesses.
(b) You yourself have stated that without kingsnake.com, your business would not exist. We can assume that others are in the same boat.
(c) It is well known that Jeffie will drop an account for no other reason than he disagrees with the person who has the account.
(d) We also know that it doesn't necessarily take a violation of his TOS for this to happen either.
Now let us extrapolate and speculate a bit (all my opinions, of course):
(a) Unless you want your business to fold, you have no other choice but to turn a blind eye to any wrong doing Jeffie may do in this business. To do otherwise, and post about it in public, runs you the risk of being dropped from kingsnake.com.
(b) If Jeffie wields this power in a spiteful and malicious manner (meaning doing so in a capricious and emotional manner, mostly out of anger), he is probably doing it hoping that his actions will do harm, perhaps terminally, to the persons business he drops the account of.
(c) There is reasonable evidence, even on this site alone, that such actions have been done enough times to indicate a pattern of premeditated attempts to harm other people.
(d) Such actions, and the resulting damage, can certainly be no less reprehensible then anything any bad guy has been brutally called to the carpet on within the BOI. For instance, is trying to destroy someones business by banning them from their primary avenue for their livelihood any less reprehensible than knowingly sending someone an animal infected with a lethal infectious disease?
Kelli, under those circumstances, if such evidence was overwhelming in supporting my above statements, would you chose to ignore them in order to save your business?
Let's take a couple of quotes from Jerry Tresser, which I believe are pretty much straightforward in describing what I see as the general mentality and ethical composition of many of the people passing judgements on the BOI:
I will agree with you that ethics have nothing to do with money or business, but I have always found it easier to resolve the problem from a business vantage, and keep the ethics for the philosphers.
If it means my survival or yours, or the loss of my business or yours, well ......I think you know the answer.
Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? As long as someone is helping to line your pockets with moola, then he is a sacred cow here. It will only be the people that are on the block that you have no financial involvement or incentive with, either present or future, that will get an honest assessment of their business practices.
It is perfectly fair game for you (collectively) to jump all the hell over Gilbert Thompson because, heck, he is probably not going to have anything you want anyway. But if Jeff Barringer's actions are questioned, well hot damn, you just might want to stay on his good side, so you WILL NOT SAY A DARNED THING AGAINST HIM.
Until you can truthfully call a spade a spade, and be completely unbiased about your opinions about everyone, regardless of who it is, you make the BOI nothing more than a two bit soap opera, with all of you actors trying hard to get your best profile towards the camera.