---Farewell AFF --- - Page 32

rgcraig · #**311** 10-03-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRev

I have a question...

How many infractions have been handed out for publically questioning admins/owners in regards to this issue with Thad?

Or is this somehow "different" because Thad left by his own choice?

Something smells fishy again...

That would make the difference.

Maple Leaf · #**312** 10-03-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Totally bogus and untrue......but now that you have said it ...... oh my Lord it becomes Gospel.....see people how easy it is to spread lies, just type a few words on a little internet forum........

Socali....you are dead wrong here.....believe me I know........

I have left what I first posted as to prove that there is nothing to hide, in all honesty I was responding to the part of the post highlighted......my post was incomplete.....they were not offended that was untrue......the point I was attempting to actually make was that they were not offended but just didnt understand why ownership let untruths be left alone and were allowed to go unchallenged.......

My wording was very poor and I can totally see where it could be taken not the way it was intended.... I will take all the blame for that.......

My untrue and dead wrong were concerning the offended part..........they were not offended, they just didnt understand ownership allowing those things to run.....

this probably confuses the matter more, but I am just attempting to clear up the misunderstanding that I created......

Socali, I apologize to make it look as if I was saying you were speaking untruth........I am sorry......

Thank you for the clarification.

I have always found that SocaliUPC posted with integrity.

I don't get overly concerned with Thad's reporting; I have always assumed that "Tab" means tabloid, and read Thad's "news" for entertainment more than information.

SoCaliUPC · #**313** 10-03-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

BUMP

Thanks IAM. That sheds some more light on the situation.

Personally speaking though, I still do not see what would cause concern.

SoCaliUPC · #**314** 10-03-2007, 03:30 PM

I don't think anyone is necessarily questioning admin more than they are questioning what the minister or leader thought was so questionable that someone would have to go to admin.

LadyRev · #**315** 10-03-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

That would make the difference.

Nothing personal...but thats about as LAME as LAME can get!

It is public knowledge that this whole Thad issue began with the ACTION of an Admin.

What to do if you have a problem with an Admin action

If you have a question about a ban, or any action of an Admin, discuss it in PM or Email with Admin. Openly questioning or defying the Admins over a banning or other Admin actions will result in a ban. All actions viewed as seditious or anarchistic will result in a banning as well.

rgcraig · #**316** 10-03-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRev

Nothing personal...but thats about as LAME as LAME can get!

It is public knowledge that this whole Thad issue began with the ACTION of an Admin.

What to do if you have a problem with an Admin action

If you have a question about a ban, or any action of an Admin, discuss it in PM or Email with Admin. Openly questioning or defying the Admins over a banning or other Admin actions will result in a ban. All actions viewed as seditious or anarchistic will result in a banning as well.

I know where you are going with this and no, it's completely different.

Read Thad's first post. He wasn't asked to leave, so that's why this thread has been allowed.