Where is.....

[critical bill]

No, I am not interpretting it that way at all, myself. The only people behind this fraud were Rozanne, Wes, and possibly some other self interested persons. I think all of the evidence was plainly provided by Rozann in her postings. Other people joined in innocently enough just because they truly like Wes and would like to see him back here.

Thank you Rich, I appreciate your acknowledgement.

Now....do you think it was particularily nice that Ritchie Rocket has implied that supporters of Wes on this thread are frauds? I'm feeling like he was very discourteous toward me and I'd like to know what youre going to do about it.

Or perhaps this is now past tense.

Nope. I still feel like you banned our star kicker and our team is weaker because of it. Just like in the new NHL, under new rules, enforcers have no place on the ice. Those that can adapt and find a way to be useful in other aspects of the game will be welcome to stay. If they cant..well..siagnora....its back to the farm wristing cow patties at a barn wall or at best a stint in the minors to degrade and embarrass you even further. Well...I don't think Wes had a problem with adapting to the new rules, but rather he liked the role he played and would never want to be anything else but an enforcer. He new what the team wanted, he knew what the fans cheered for, and he always knew exactly what the situation in the GAME called for. He provided the intensity and grit needed every game until the rule changes, and stricter enforcement of them, took him away.

I'm kind of happy he is NOT coming back. I'll get to remember him forever as he should be.....the Tie Domi of fauna.

Ya know Rich....next time your rolling in your vette see if you can pick up a hockey game on the radio and simply forget about what you would SEE as an attendee at the game. It doesn't even SOUND the same anymore.

Thats what I'm saying........

 

[jsrocket]

Of course I was not implying that everyone who posted on this thread was aware of what was really going on. Did I need to write that down for it to be understood?

Bill Leverton, I guess I do owe you an apology, even though what you did makes you a person of poor character in my book. I don't know if you knew or not.

For those of you who didn't know what was up, didn't it bother you that you were used as unwitting pawns in this charade?

 

[Bill_Leverton]

OMG Oh No Jim Rocket is Ritchie Rocket Will the maddness ever end ???

 

[Bill_Leverton]

Bill Leverton, I guess I do owe you an apology, even though what you did makes you a person of poor character in my book. I don't know if you knew or not.

Apology Not needed, And your book well that don't bother me if above is true you have always been that way in mine

 

[critical bill]

Of course I was not implying that everyone who posted on this thread was aware of what was really going on. Did I need to write that down for it to be understood?

Ok. So I take that as an apology. Good for you being man enough to admit when youre wrong. .

For those of you who didn't know what was up, didn't it bother you that you were used as unwitting pawns in this charade?

So now you're saying that some of us are dumb? That we lack the wit necessary to know when the wool is being pulled over our eyes? What the hell is wrong with you? First you apologize and then you insult again?

Now I know why Wes commonly used the "D" word to describe you.

 

[WebSlave]

If someone doesn't know how to twist the knife without resorting to derogatory statements, name calling, profanity, or malicious twisting of someone's name just to goad them, then no, they don't have a place on this site any longer. I don't know, I wrote a lot of posts in this thread pretty late at night, but did I get my message across and out someone by using that kind of language here? I don't think I did, but maybe I am wrong. I didn't think it was necessary to get my point across, so I hope I did not.

The stuff that Wes apparently needed to resort to, even in the pursuit of overall good, reflected poorly on this site and the way I was allowing it to be run by it's members. It was reflecting on MY reputation, and I decided I didn't want this site to become a black mark on my own record. What needs to be done in the BOI CAN be done without resorting to malignant uses of the english language. And it will be done here. If Wes chose to buck the changes just to test my resolve, rather then cleaning up his act, and in the process helping me to clean up this site, then he just chose to make the decision that best fit him, I guess. Apparently he is not happy about the decision he made, and enough so to try to cause a ruckus here even from the "other" side.

I am not asking for people to give up the pursuit of bad guys to expose them. I am asking them to do it like mature adults instead of a bunch of two-bit gang members standing on a street corner heckling someone. If that is impossible for people to do, then I am afraid I will have to give up the usefullness of the BOI in order to regain some respect for it that has been lost due to that kind of activity there. MY reputation is worth far more to me then the BOI is. Sorry to have to spell that out, but that is the truth of the matter.

As far as what I am going to do to Ritchie Rocket for his posts, well nothing. I guess I read them, but they certainly didn't put a blip on my radar screen. I think anyone should be able to take some criticism without having overly thin skin. And I particularly don't especially favor people who try to use me and the warning system as a weapon against someone they just don't like. I have all these tools available to me to use against someone whom I may not particularly like, but I restrain myself until there is clear reason to use them. No I am not going to go way overboard and to the other extreme on enforcing the rules. Some leeway, tolerance, and patience is in order, otherwise this site will become to stiffling for most people to bear.

 

[jsrocket]

I didn't say that, and you know it

Unwitting = didn't know, unaware

 

[critical bill]

As far as what I am going to do to Ritchie Rocket for his posts, well nothing.

Sweet. Thanks for nothing.

 

[jsrocket]

I didn't say that, and you know it

Unwitting = didn't know, unaware

 

[nicolai]

Remember this???

This is one of the mannerisms some members have exhibited that I intend to end. Sorry, but I just do not agree that insults and personal attacks should be allowed at all, anywhere. That is exactly the sort of thing I have heard time and time again that many people dislike about this site. So I do intend to do something about it. That sort of behavior has no place on this site at all. Period.

'
I just thought i would remind you of this post Rich.

 

[critical bill]

I didn't say that, and you know it

No...you don't know what I know. My definition of unwittingly is not unaware, its by accident. And I didn't learn about the nature of Roz's motives by accident, Rich pretty much explained in detail how it went down and conveyed what he believed to be the truth quite clearly.

Again I'll say that you used the word unwittingly to state that those of us who support Wes are witless mindless followers. I find that insulting.

Do it again and I'm not going to be so nice and forgiving. Do you understand Rocket?

 

[nicolai]

One other then I have to go clean...

I am open to criticism, but NOT to blatant derogatory statements or name calling, even in an oblique or inferential manner. That aspect of this site has now come to an abrupt end.

His remarks were more the oblique or inferential dont you think?

I guess the best rule of thumb you can go by is to read your post before you click the "Submit Reply" button and think about how YOU would feel about that post if it were directed at you. Does it offend you? Is it harsh to the point of being derogatory? Does it belittle you? Does it make you angry enough that you want to reply in like kind with the same sort of language? Does it not do anything at all in that thread that any reasonable and prudent person would consider an addition of value to this site?

If yes, then I strongly suggest that you take the time to work on that message before submitting it. I strongly suggest that you control your temper, become thoughtful in how you post, and consider how you can make YOUR image look a lot better by being the one on the high road with your words rather then lowering yourself into the gutter by the ill conceived words you choose.

 

[nicolai]

And I particularly don't especially favor people who try to use me and the warning system as a weapon against someone they just don't like.

Wow, I just reread that post and realized that comment was probably meant towards me. Was I using you as a weapon? no... Was I expecting another member to follow the rules? yes..... Did I resort to the same kind of satements that he made? no....Why because in you quote above you said not to. Did I expect you to be fair in this matter? yes...Did I personally feel insulted yes...Did it get kicked under the rug? yes.

 

[reptilebreeder]

Wow. What a bunch of garbage. Missed this thread when it first started. As Rich mentioned in one of his posts there are actually some people who are still teetering on the fence, concerning the new and improved (subject to interpretation) FC, I was one of them. I think though, that this thread has made my mind up for me. Look at my posts, look at my warning points (zero), I participated in many of the threads, particularly last summer with the deluge of scammers, in those threads I never really got in any personal flame wars, nor trolled, and hardly used any vulgar language (if any at all). I rarely use vulgar language in real life, and so am the same way even on the "faceless" and "anonomous" internet. That said I do believe in being able to call a spade a spade. If someone is an obvious liar, scammer, idiot, Ass , I'm going to call them that (also in real life), that does not mean I have poor command of the english language, that I am an idiot who doesn't know any "real" words, or that someone who likes to be sickly sweet all the time, is better than me. That's why I'm jumping off the fence. Don't get me wrong I didn't condone some of Wes' antics, particularly in the end. I do however feel his "bull in a china shop" mentality, and particularly his tenacity, was what helped this site become so well at exposing bad guys.

Overall, I am troubled by the fact that due to this new and improved FC, as well as the fees, certain good people left, or imploded and were shown the door. People like Wes, Seamus, Wendy (and her husband, who's name escapes me at the moment) Brian, and several others, yet people like Neil, bud, bruce stephenson, and rocket get to "act" like they are the good guys. bruce goes out of his way to condone people who are convicted criminals, and was purposfully antagonistic to this site and Wes, by paying the memberships and/or fines for people who had nothing but disdain for this site and/ or Wes, at the same time he was trying to sound so innocent and noble. Then you got RRocket, one of the bottom of the barrel people who has nothing to add to this site and particularly this thread yet, he has half a dozen or more posts here that are nothing but, "why is this thread here, it's a waste" (yet feels it's okay for him to post willy nilly garbage), then he insults everybody, but is able to make it "clean".

Now I know Rich and others like to say that if these scumbags can clean their posts enough to comply with the new rules than so should you guys, but as Sam said to Frodo when they first met Stridor (Aragorn; The future King), and they were leary of him, and were trying to size him up, he said I think he's okay

He looks foul, but feels fair

and someone mentioned that that is better than looking fair and feeling foul. That's how this site is starting to feel, IMHO. People with no morals, bad ethics, scammers, scummy, or whom have disdain for this site, or are just basically useless (as in the one who said he was done with this thread, yet added half a dozen posts after, and is at this time still reading the thread),[are foul] yet they are going through the trouble to disguise their posts.[feel fair]. The ones who were unable or unwilling to comply with the new FC [feel foul], were many good people with good morals and good intentions [are fair].
I suppose now I will get my first points, and it may even raise to the level of suspension (not trying to, but still a little unsure of the new rules) as I did call specific people unethical (bruce) and worthless (rocket; look at all his posts, including his alter ego garbage), like I said I've always called it like I see it, and I can't clean it up any more than that, as it will lose it's meaning, and effectiveness. I'm also not trying to make this one of those "okay, I'm leaving, I really am, bye............3 months and 100 posts later....no I'm really leaving this place, bye....." I intend to hang around, particularly the forums and the classifieds, just don't feel personally, that I want to pay the fee to participate in the "looks fair, feels foul" (IMO only) part, even though I was a volunteer donor before the fees started.

 

[shrap]

Excellent post John.....EXCELLENT!!!!

 

[critical bill]

I agree....that was an excellent post. Good job John!

 

[Jim O]

Could not have said it better...though last time I checked, Bruce had been suspended for trolling.

 

[Jim O]

As far as what I am going to do to Ritchie Rocket for his posts, well nothing. I guess I read them, but they certainly didn't put a blip on my radar screen. I think anyone should be able to take some criticism without having overly thin skin.

OK Rich. But I have to point out that you have said that the rules will be applied consistently when a violation is seen. I can accept that you cannot see every post, but the posts that you do see will be treated fairly, that you will call it as you see it. So...

That's the kiss of death Mike, when you're being defended by Fauna's number one troll. Consider who else he has defended recently.

is worthy of a suspension for "Discourtesy towards another member" and

I await to see proof of your ability to wite down a coherent thought.

is not?

I'm sorry but that is hardly consistent. Your mods had already labelled Dennis1 a troll prior to my statement and I stand by what I said. If Jim Ritchie aka Ritchie Rocket had said that to me I would be rather offended, and if he'd said it to you...well I bet that you also would have been. If that does not rise to at least the same level of "Discourtesy towards another member" as referring to Dennis1 as a troll I guess that I don't understand the English language.

 

[WebSlave]

Take it however you wish to. I evidently glanced over those posts and it didn't jingle my bells as being a problem so I did nothing about it. If you disagree with my assessment, then report those posts and perhaps one of the moderators will agree with you.

Now who is going to be the first to say I am being preferential to my long lost half brother Ritchie Rocket?

I am open to criticism, but NOT to blatant derogatory statements or name calling, even in an oblique or inferential manner. That aspect of this site has now come to an abrupt end.

His remarks were more the oblique or inferential dont you think?

Read that again, this time a little closer. I believe that was written in reference to what I was going to tolerate from other members towards ME. I believe I posted that when someone was getting a bit too carried away with their attacks on me.

So what, now that Dennis is gone you guys need to find the next lowest guy on the totem pole to pick on?

I had a group of baby broadheaded skinks that were that way. Every day I would find one of them dead, apparently from the entire group of them picking one of them and then killing it. Each day picking the next smallest or weakest one in the clutch until only a few of them remained. Seems awfully similar to me.

Well excuse me if I decline to help you. It's like this thread is bound and determined to attack one person or another under any pretense at all. It will cease NOW or I will simply close it.

 

[WebSlave]

OK Rich. But I have to point out that you have said that the rules will be applied consistently when a violation is seen. I can accept that you cannot see every post, but the posts that you do see will be treated fairly, that you will call it as you see it. So...

is worthy of a suspension for "Discourtesy towards another member" and

is not?

I'm sorry but that is hardly consistent. Your mods had already labelled Dennis1 a troll prior to my statement and I stand by what I said. If Jim Ritchie aka Ritchie Rocket had said that to me I would be rather offended, and if he'd said it to you...well I bet that you also would have been. If that does not rise to at least the same level of "Discourtesy towards another member" as referring to Dennis1 as a troll I guess that I don't understand the English language.

Get off of that road, Jim. Hearing that tune is getting real old. You know damned right well your usage of that term was derogatory and one in a long list of derogatory mannerisms towards another member. That was a shot fired across your bow, and I have no qualms about firing another one. You are just reaching now for an excuse to get into another piss on the WebSlave argument and I don't have the patience to put up with you or anyone else right at the moment.

I'll bet Wes and gang are laughing their asses off on how this thread got you guys all riled up here. He is still pulling strings here, evidently, and I will have no qualms about snipping them however I think will be best to do so.