• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

THE SNAKE PIT WAS BURGLARIZED *AGAIN* LAST NIGHT!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok neil plz dont take this wrong but what truce did we come to and when? and does this mean no more trashing me to customers when they come in your store? </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>  

It should be fairly obvious to all who have been reading these posts that Neil is an arrogant man who tries to intimidate anyone who confronts him. She is saying "PLEASE",  Neil do not to take her commets wrong. She knows Neil personally and does not want to offend him. I have dealt with Neil and can vouch for the fact that he is not a nice guy.(unless you like to be insulted) And I was a customer!
 
I think that Ritchie does not like it when people come on this board and make lame excuses. It would be better if they did not post at all
 
I was not crying about anything I simply stated that I have to always have proof,Neil simply has to say it to be believed and you have to admit that is the way it has always been in whatever thread he post in.As far as what he said to another I wanted you to hear it from her so then it is not "hearsay".

Jenny I do not know what tapes you speak of but hold on to them because you and Ray will surely be called to repeat the "rumor" that you told Neil,you Know the one he said Ray changed his story on and you can play them then.

Neil,Remember what I said about watch what you say on this forum because once it is there it is there to stay and it will come back to bite you,well I will have the complete forum in court the "new" and the "old" B.O.I. do you remember all the times you were "CONFUSED" there?  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>  Your credibility with being honest will go right away. <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
 
I commend Trooper for his fine post.  It shows excellent character.  I hope to shake your hand some day, Trooper.

I have to thank Ritchie for bringing to my attention a typo in my post (#666?).  The sentence that said, "In defamation suit in a court of law, Neil has only the burden of coming forward with the statements Neil made." should have read, "In a defamation suit in a court of law, Neil only has the burden of coming forward with the statements DAVE made."  Yes, it was absurd the other way around, so thank you, Ritchie.  

And yes, Ritchie, I would love to read the PI's report with my own eyes; please direct me to anybody who has actually seen the thing.  Reminds me of the story I used to hear once or twice a week when I worked (before you were born, yada, yada) for Ross Allen (arrogant name-dropping).  The story is that a water-skier fell in a "nest of cottonmouths" in Lake such and such, and when they pulled his limp and lifeless corpse from the water 5 minutes later, he had 200 bite marks on his body. It was always the storyteller's uncle or sister who was there or read it in the paper, or whatever.  Nobody came and said "I was there" or even "I read it in the Miami Herald."

We ought not to assume too much about the PI's report until we see it, and I certainly will be open-minded when I do. Those things vary widely in quality and I urge you not to abandon the sharp eyes of skepticism that have served you so well.

I also want to talk to the TPD detective who is investigating the case, particularly if to find out if he has in fact been leaking information that could be posted on this BOI and compromise his investigation.

Ritchie, a lot of your questions are the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type.  My hunch is that you like to throw stuff in lakes just to see if any stupid fish come up and try to eat it, and the results amuse me, too.

Scott and Daniel, I understand the concern about the quality of Neil's lawyer.  The post was to give Dave and hopefully his lawyer a glimpse of what the case looks like.  Dave can't change the facts; it is too late for that, and lawyers are not ethically permitted to make the facts.  We take the facts as we find them. In Florida civil procedure there are no trials by ambush, unlike other states.  Both sides are required to name their witnesses, with addresses.  Both sides subpoena the other side's witnesses, just like I will be able to subpoena Dave and ask him questions under oath about anything likely to lead to witnesses or evidence in the case.  Dave can't change any facts and I will know his whole case before trial; we do that because it encourages settlements without taking up the court's time.  Yes, I know this is not the sterotypical lawyer way of doing these things.  If we did it the way we've always done it, nobody would be breeding chondros, either.

I want to make it clear that, whether you think that Dave Lawson fit the profile of the burglar of the Pit, there is regrettably no shortage in the world of people such as I described, and I am not accusing Dave of doing any burglary.
If you thought I was, you are mistaken.

Meantime, if Dave's lawyer reads my posts, she will be able to better advise Dave on what course of action to take.  I am betting that will work in Neil's favor, not against him, so I prefer that she know how I think this will play out.  If Dave doesn't show her the posts, she may not see the picture from any angle but Dave's.   I e-mailed Dave's lawyer (her e-mail address is on the Florida Bar website, so she must want people to use it) at 11:21 a.m. on 5/22/02 to confirm that she represents him.  I have not received a response from her.
 
Phil,I think that Neil and you have the same trouble answering direct questions.Did Neil committ Libel when he posted "Dave is a liar? I will be more then happy to post the full named of the people that said "I had Neil's snakes in N.C.
 
Whjy I did a complete turn around.
a report by Ritchie Luna

1.  I was defending Neil Ruthlessly.
2.  He said there were rumors of him being the prime suspect.  so I backed off
3.  I asked some questions which went unanswered.
4.  I found out who the PI suspected.
5.  I asked more questions which some were answered with a lie.
6.  He hires a lawyer and his own PI which he can lead around by the nose.

I was doing research on Dave.  (to find him lying).  And I could not find one where it clearly shows him lying...Someone prove me wrong please.  All I could find is Neil saying "that is a lie"  

Then I did reserch on Neil.  I found a couple.
 Motleyish snake was stolen  (whoops it was in the freezer).
Then there were a couple others....My memory just happened to "lapse" right now...so I fail to list them.  But the main one is when he says.
"you can walk into my store nat anytime....and I will show you all FOUR police reports...I have them in hand"  Then later on we find out...he does not even know if he filed them or not.  How can you be typing that the police reports are in your hand....then "forget " to look to see if they are really there?

So you all want me to show you proof?
Let's just put it this way.  Neil KNOWS the PI's report is not going to be favorable towards him.  I do not have to show proof....the victim himself says that he is a prime suspect.  He says he talked to his Dad and found out that he was prime supect.  That is because the PI told his DAD that Neil is a prime supect.  That is why when Neil said"my Dad will post to clear my name".....I found it rather odd.  Because Mr. Jay Gubitz was told by the PI that his son is a supect.....how can he clear his sons name by posting?

Neil know's th PI report is not favorable towards him
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I found out what Tom had put in that report (that's IF a report was EVER made??)...I wouldn't give him the right time of day, let alone $700!!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The PI suspects him
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At Dave's  his request I made some preliminary inquiries and as I thought from the very beginning I believe Gubitz has been staging his own burglaries all along. Since the other investigation is now officially closed I can speak more freely and legally. I know where there are certain items of evidence that would place Gubitz in the position of having to defend himself  in a criminal court. I do not believe he would be able to do that as the evidence in incontrovertible</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe however that if you read between the lines you will come to the conclusion that this whole thing was a fraud from the beginning.  Why is the Snake Pit always burglarized? His own help as well as others around him who he thinks are his friends say he mistreats his animals and staged the burglaries himself. Again, I can't prove this but it is a very disturbing set of circumstances.”</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What happened to the state of the
art surveillance equipment that was installed? Conveniently turned off?
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Just in case you all STILL accidentally missed it on purpose.  Those are quotes from the horses mouth...The PI himself
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHAT IS "LIBEL"?
Libel is a written defamation. Generally, radio and television broadcasts that are defamatory are considered to be libel, rather than slander.

CAN I SUE SOMEONE WHO SAYS OR WRITES SOMETHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ME?
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.


WHAT ABOUT INSULTS AND EPITHETS? ARE THEY DEFAMATORY?
Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike.

DON'T I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS MY OPINION?
Yes, so long as your statement of opinion is just an opinion, not containing specific facts that can be proved untrue.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Sited from same site as I stated before.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did Neil committ Libel when he posted "Dave is a liar?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The answer, YES.  But, he can say it was just an insult or epithet and get away with it.  Or prove you lied once and he still wins.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHAT ARE THE DEFENSES TO A LIBEL CLAIM?
There are three main defenses to a libel claim (other than asserting that it never happened or that you were never involved):

The first is claiming, and proving, that the statement was privileged (and thus not public). Only certain professions (doctors, lawyers, psychologists), or individuals (chiefly your spouse) can maintain that privilege; and if any non-privileged third party was part of the communication, the privilege is broken. (Employees of a professional are only partially covered, to the extent that you needed to use them to contact the professional. Don't expect to tell your deepest, darkest secret to your attorney's secretary, and maintain that privilege.)

The second defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement is true, for "truth is an absolute defense".  

The third defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of a fact. Since this last defense is only as good as the weakest or worst, but still reasonable, misinterpretation, it's not one you really want to rely on. There's a world of difference between saying "I think he's a crook," and "he's a crook". Especially if a third party might inadvertently leave out the first two words when passing  your message on.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'> Same site as before.

Since both Neil and Dave where not talking to Doctors, Lawyers, or a Psychologist when they where posting here, and they are not married to each other, deffense number is out.

Again, either side only has to prove what was said/written was true.  Defense #2 can be done and blown apart as well.  Lawyers are very good at playing word games. So any grey area will be blown up and made to look like a huge black hole to slant it to their side of the facts.

Defense number 3, well, good luck to both of you.



You guys should really consider what you are doing to this site and any future sites where free speech is encouraged.  The Pandorhas Box that you are opening is not worth all this he said she said crap.  The only one that is really going to win is the lawyer.  Even if Neil wins, he still loses. Because he and his lawyer set up a legal avenue in court on how to shut these types of BOI's down.  (Sue everyone for anything they dont like)  But if Neil loses, well he still lost.  Same can be said about Dave too.  So you all know I am not taking sides.
 
Dave shut up, you got less credibilty then Neil does, always have and always will, but right now it dont matter what either of you two say you both look like morons. SHUT UP!!!!!!!!
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey,I have a idea,Why don't Neil tell everyone what he ask Julie to do with the albino and anery boas the night before they were "stolen" and why he ask her to do it.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I really thought I was going to be leaving this post alone once I said what I had to say, but...Dave is correct about a favor Neil asked of myself. A few of days before his Dec '01 burglary Neil had asked me to take home with me the albino boa and the anery boa that he had in his store because he wanted them safe should the store be broken into again. In the previous week before him asking me this, he was repeatedly saying that he just knows that he's going to get broken into again. After taking into consideration that he had been repeatedly saying this, you can bet that those snakes stayed right where they were at, because something just didn't sit right with me about the whole thing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please recall that there was some strange hostility displayed very early by Julie's posts.  Although Dave denied responsibility for her posts, the rest of Dave and Julie's posts would cause a reasonably cautious person to wonder if Julie relied on Dave for some or all of the rumors she spread. Perhaps it means nothing.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Just to clear this up - thanks, but I have many many more people than just Dave to talk to. The person I have gotten alot of my info from will be speaking out eventually even if it be not until this goes to court. It'll make alot more sense once this person can actually come forward. Like Dave said before - he really did try to get me not to post what I did because he knew it was going to really open up a can of worms to say the least. I have alot of reasons for posting what I did, but the MAIN reason was that I didn't want happening what happened the last time with all of the donations. I know of at least 5 other people that he bragged to about all of the animals/$$$ he got from the last donations. The last time I had my suspicions. This time knowing what all I know, I had to say something to keep those who were willing to donate to keep from getting ripped off again. I have no animosity towards Neil, but I have known him for over a year and a half, and over that time I have seen him for what kind of a person he really is and want no part of him. I am in no way what so ever, in any way shape or form jealous of Neil - I have no reason to be.

So anyway - I hate to waste anymore time on this computer on such a beautiful day. To those of you who would like to accept this wish - "Happy Memorial Day!"

Oh yeah - and to blkmagic - ***HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!***
 
Ritchie Luna,
That PI's report that you are so fond of quoting. Have you seen an actual hard copy of it? And have you talked to the PI in person or on the phone? Just really curious if you have or not.
Ross Buskard
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only one that is really going to win is the lawyer.  Even if Neil wins, he still loses. Because he and his lawyer set up a legal avenue in court on how to shut these types of BOI's down.  (Sue everyone for anything they dont like)  But if Neil loses, well he still lost.  Same can be said about Dave too.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Tim,

Thanks for stating it so clearly. Regrettably they have both lost already. Winning or loosing in court, it doesn't matter anymore. You are just throwing your money away.

Regards,
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ritchie Luna,
That PI's report that you are so fond of quoting. Have you seen an actual hard copy of it?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Research my young watson research.

I was not quoting the PI report.
I have not seen the PI report.  But I know just like Neil knows...what it would or might say.  didn't I already say that?
Let me go real slow
I....h a v e   n o t   s e e n   a   P I    r e p o r t
Neil has not seen a pi report either.  But yet he knows he is the PI prime supect.

all those quotes i quoted .....the webslave posted those himself.  They were e-mails from the PI to the webslave...
follow allong here.

Neil's own words
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I found out what Tom had put in that report (that's IF a report was EVER made??)...I wouldn't give him the right time of day, let alone $700!!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>  Neil KNOWS he is the PI's prime suspect.  (did you get that)

AGAIN here is a copy of an e-mail the PI sent to the webslave.
the webslave posted it himself.  The WEBSLAVE did.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I made some preliminary inquiries and as I thought from the very beginning I believe Gubitz has been staging his own burglaries all along. Since the other investigation is now officially closed I can speak more freely and legally. I know where there are certain items of evidence that would place Gubitz in the position of having to defend himself  in a criminal court. I do not believe he would be able to do that as the evidence in incontrovertible</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Here is another that the webslave posted himself.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe however that if you read between the lines you will come to the conclusion that this whole thing was a fraud from the beginning.  Why is the Snake Pit always burglarized? His own help as well as others around him who he thinks are his friends say he mistreats his animals and staged the burglaries himself. Again, I can't prove this but it is a very disturbing set of circumstances.”</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I never at anytime pretended to quote from a PI report  I do not have access to it.  I am judging only by what the PI has been e-mailing certain memers of this thread.

Neil  when is your Dad supposedly gonna come and post to clear your name?  What is he gonna tell us....that you are not the Pi's prime supect? he he right
 
anyway I am through with this thread.

a friend of mine from up north is sending a breeding loan my way.  an offer I can't refuse.  An offer that just helps me out to get started into this business should I feel inclined to get past the hobby phase.

I just realized....I muddied up my name by just coming to this thread.
So I hope that the truth comes out.
and if you do not like it...Hire a different PI like Neil did.

I hope this thing sinks to the bottom and gets lost somewhere down there.


I feel dirty..where is the soap


p.s.  I reserve the right to come back when someone mentions my name or asks me a question

good bye
 
Ritchie,
All you are doing then is passing on second and third hand information and crucifying the man based on someone elses hearsay.  I'll go really slow for you. Thats character assasination by innuendo.  If you have anything concrete to ad, do so, otherwise stop and think before you post something that your friend's, cousin's, uncle's, brother said. If you don't have firsthand knowledge of the event, it's useless and only serves to muddy the water.
Ross Buskard
 
Wheweee!  What a read this has been!

Let us recap what we know:

A. A pet shop owner (Neil) claims he was broken into, but because of his use of illegal drugs in the past, cannot remember any of the details.

B. A guy with a criminal record as long as his leg (Dave) has been accused of being a possible suspect by the guy with the pet shop.

C. Dave got dragged into this by his girl friend (Julie) making the first post that something was fishy about Neils claim.

D.  Julie has apparently gotten a lot of her inside information from Angie (her friend), whom works for Neil and some unidentified police officers.

E.  The police officer assigned by the TPD goes on vacation right after being assigned the case, which will surely give plenty of time for the trail to grow cold, evidence to vanish, and suspects to thoroughly cover their tracks.

F.  Neil's dad is supposed to be the real owner of the store and seems to have called a lot of people in concern over what is happening to his store.  But not so concerned that he would cancel his vacation plans at such a time.

G. Neil hires an attorney who likes to spout off Shakespeare and let everyone know how smart he is.  Meanwhile letting his client free rein to weaken the case further by making public statements about the case.

H.  Dave quotes some points about the burglary that indicate an inside job. Neil makes statements that seem to concur, saying it had to be someone intimately familiar with the inside of the store.

When you take all of this points together and chew on them a bit, it sounds like something no mystery novel writer could ever dream up and pass by an editor.  But one thing should be glaringly obvious to anyone taking an objective view of the 'facts' being stated here.  If everyone is telling the truth that they believe, and making statements that are true at face value, then only ONE person can logically be the one who actuallly did the burglary.

Any guess on who that person is?  The facts indicate that Neil possibly really knows the culprit, but for whatever reasons is protecting this person.  So let's answer the question of who done it with another question or two.

As many times as Neil has posted over the years, what is his marital status?  Anyone?  Is his relationship with Angie anything other than employer/employee?  Count on one hand all of the people who have intimate knowledge of the store.  Count on one hand all of the people that can have the kind of inside information that is being shared in this thread.  Count on one hand the persons that seem to have inside knowledge of what really happened yet are not taking an ethical stand that they should be taking if what they say is true, actually is.

Last question.  Who is the one person that has the complete trust of the owner of the robbed store, has the ear of the people posting some obvious inside information on this thread, yet has been completely overlooked by everyone here as the likely person that really is responsible for the crime?

In my opinion, with all of the points above looked at logically and objectively, only one person can fit into those shoes:  Angie.
 
I do not have to say what is on the report...if it exists..
Neil says it himself
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I found out what Tom had put in that report (that's IF a report was EVER made??)...I wouldn't give him the right time of day, let alone $700!!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Weblsave posted a sliver of e-mail from the PI and it is okay
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I made some preliminary inquiries and as I thought from the very beginning I believe Gubitz has been staging his own burglaries all along. Since the other investigation is now officially closed I can speak more freely and legally. I know where there are certain items of evidence that would place Gubitz in the position of having to defend himself  in a criminal court. I do not believe he would be able to do that as the evidence in incontrovertible</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I post a sliver of e-mail from the PI and it is not okay.  What is up with that?

Do you see the double standards?
Neil can protect his reputation but Dave can't.
Neil can spread rumors but Dave can't.
Neil can repeat rumors but Dave can't
Neil can repeat things told to him...But I can't
The webslave can post e-mails but I can't.

It seems if something or someone goes against Neil...it is not allowed.

That is why I am taking this personal.  I see the double standards.
The "good" guys have to answer to the questions as well.
There is no "Elite".  NO ONE is exempt from answering to the allegations brought forth upon this forum.

Dave has to answer questions...But your precious Neil does not have to?  What kind of BS is that?

It is character assasination by inuendo if Dave or I repeat things we hear.  But if Neil repeats things he hears....it is his God given right.

Do you see it yet?
Or are you blinded by all the smoke and mirrors?

We all paid for a PI.  Neil did not like the results (because it implicated him) so he hires his own.  Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Lastly another quote from the PI which came from the PI..which was written on the PI's computer.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I made some preliminary inquiries and as I thought from the very beginning I believe Gubitz has been staging his own burglaries all along.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>



Jolly Roger.... It Can't be Angie...Want to know why?
Because Neil Swears it is not angie.
It Can't be Dave either....Be cause Neil swore up and down it was not Dave.


Also I made a comment to Neil that Angie was kinda hot..And Neil replied right away that there was nothing going on between him and Angie.  Of course I never insinuated such.  All I know is his reply came from left field somewhere..  It would be like me telling Bill Clinton that Monica Lewinsky Has Nice Lips.....Then Bill coming out of left feild saying  "I never felt those lips around my ___"

Alas another twist to the story......I think the butler did it with the maid in the foyer with a candle stick.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The webslave can post e-mails but I can't.
Webslave posted a sliver of e-mail from the PI and it is okay.
I post a sliver of e-mail from the PI and it is not okay. What is up with that?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Ritchie,

Can you elaborate? Have you been censored in any way?

Thanks, <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ritchie,
All you are doing then is passing on second and third hand information and crucifying the man based on someone elses hearsay.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

That was from Roscoe.
He said that because I happen to quote someting.

I do not mean to insinuate that webslave tried to censor me.
My apologies if that is the way it sounded
 
FYI, I am planning on going through this thread and deleting all comments that have no reason to be here and do not add anything of any substance to this thread.  That may include any bickering between the persons whom are NOT the main characters in this situation that add nothing to the knowledge base.  Things like 'Wow!, What a thread!' or somesuch are definitely not needed here.

This will be an effort to reduce the noise level to allow the signal to come through with less obstruction.  Not sure exactly what that signal actually is, but there must be one here somewhere.

I have been asked via private emails several times to close this thread from further input.  I am not inclined to do that for the simple reason that all of the cards have not been exposed on the table yet, and there are still some people whom may have something to contribute that is worthwhile.  Closing this thread would likely be a misinterpreted signal to them that their input is not wanted or needed.

This issue is far from being resolved and although the discussion has gotten heated at points, it is not of such intensity that I feel the need to throw a bucket of cold water over everyone involved.

BTW, I contacted tech support for this message board and got the code change needed to fix the view counter problem.  It had stopped at 32,767 for quite awhile because of a designed value limit that had been reached for a database field.  It should be counting views normally now.  For you techies, this field was an unsigned integer.  It is now a long integer, which should be sufficient to hold the field views for quite a long time.

Sorry about that glitch.
 
Back
Top