Her running it by St Chris to see if it is not violating confidentiality is different than him approving the nonsense she presented as a true factual presentation.
Originally Posted by Fancyinheels
Oh, one more thing: For those of you ready to flame-broil my narrative like a choice ribeye, I ran the entire post above past St. Chris first to make sure that I was representing the facts accurately to the best of my knowledge (he has the full public, private, modly lowdown, of course) without violating any confidentiality, and he was absolutely fine with what I've written EXACTLY as typed.
More hearsay. Originally Posted by chicagoboy
Fancy is trying to present a case that she did nothing wrong but was banned a month for doing nothing wrong...
That makes no sense...but it has fooled quite a few folks.
Why was she banned for a month if she did nothing wrong?
Fancy has twisted more than a few words to make it seem as if she did nothing wrong and St. Chris agrees with her... if he agreed she did nothing wrong and yet still banned her for a month, well then that would be wrong.