Thank You For The Warning CPalm

Annie, English please. Most of these guys don't know Annie-speak. LOL
I only got less than half of that and wonder if you meant it for another thread. And I even know some Annie-speak.

Guys,

#13 - In our review forums, be mindful of the 'maturity' of threads you are posting to, ie. the date of the last item posted. We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago. Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider, but as a general rule of thumb, this can best be accomplished by writing a new review altogether and avoiding the bumping of old ones. This applies to our review forums, in particular, as discussion threads are often allowed to flow for an unspecified length of time.

Sweet Tabow Gman...............Day late and dollar short.................WTF..... . We are talking about the points and warning and over modtarding the board namely by your pal C.......I Tried to type slow so you could keep up.........

Guys....
#13 - ........this can best be accomplished by writing a new review altogether and avoiding the bumping of old ones. This applies to our review forums, in particular, as discussion threads are often allowed to flow for an unspecified length of time. Originally Posted by gman44

Understood gman, however once Softball opened it up(and incurred the penalties) does our posting behind him constitute a "bump"?
We've been trying to ask this from the word go.

Had Softball written a new review, would it have been accepted as a "Review" seeing as how he never saw her again? Would it have been attached to her list of reviews for all to see? Or just buried in coed to disappear into obscurity?

Weren't the allegations relevant or valuable enough to update the review? Where's the gray area here? Just want to understand it clearly.

Annie all I want for Christmas is you,love and miss you,guess I will get points for no staying on topic

Understood gman, however once Softball opened it up(and incurred the penalties) does our posting behind him constitute a "bump"?
We've been trying to ask this from the word go.

Had Softball written a new review, would it have been accepted as a "Review" seeing as how he never saw her again? Would it have been attached to her list of reviews for all to see? Or just buried in coed to disappear into obscurity?

Weren't the allegations relevant or valuable enough to update the review? Where's the gray area here? Just want to understand it clearly. Originally Posted by hotrix1

I have never seen it as that

Understood gman, however once Softball opened it up(and incurred the penalties) does our posting behind him constitute a "bump"?
We've been trying to ask this from the word go.. Originally Posted by hotrix1

Damn Hot dh has already answered that, it was a bull shit call........

Had Softball written a new review, would it have been accepted as a "Review" seeing as how he never saw her again? Would it have been attached to her list of reviews for all to see? Or just buried in coed to disappear into obscurity?

Weren't the allegations relevant or valuable enough to update the review? Where's the gray area here? Just want to understand it clearly. Originally Posted by hotrix1

I have never seen it as that Originally Posted by gman44

Gman didn't see it as that......I wonder what he saw ????

I have never seen it as that Originally Posted by gman44

Which part there gman? And please expand on the specifics. See part of the problem we had to begin with was with the interpretation of the GL. Maybe I'm being a little dense, let's just say I am.
Why did warnings go out if there was not a violation?

Weren't the allegations relevant or valuable?

How could have Softball written a new "Review" when he has not, will not ever again, see VI?

Hell, even an NCNS gets relegated to coed and is never attached to the provider's reviews for the record. After all GL13 made the provision

Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider

.

So why was it not applicable in this instance?

JJ, look at Gmans post for GL 13. Especially the tidbit right after the "ie" portion. It may seem as if he is trying to clarify his pov on this stinking mess

The idea of allowing some retarded idiot with a modtarderator badge dictate to me how it is going to be is laughable on its face.

Cpalm doesn't run jack shit. rrabbit doesn't run jack shit. I don't recall a recent post in your local forum where either of them state they run jack shit.

If you have a modtard who is too fucking weak to acknowledge a mistake and take the face smear that goes with it, that is his fucking problem; not yours or mine. If he prefers the death of a thousand cuts, who am I to council him to a different path?

I like to thinck of modtards who refuse to adhere to the vision set forth by the Owner of this site as baby seals......the Owner has a soft spot for baby seals. He thincks they will eventually grow out of it (he is a romantic like that until he is not).......me, I love clubbing baby seals. Originally Posted by dearhunter

Maybe you should list your accomplishments as a Houston mod (that forum is a disaster) before you preach hate speech for all the sheepies in the panhandle. The Deerhunter handle does not hold credibility, your an easy targetmod.

Maybe you should list your accomplishments as a Houston mod (that forum is a disaster) before you preach hate speech for all the sheepies in the panhandle. The Deerhunter handle does not hold credibility, your an easy targetmod. Originally Posted by bc1969

I would tread lightly there twinkletoes. Considering how you stayed out of the fray until now. Where you been hiding?

BTW, what have you done to contribute to the well-being of your fellow Panhandlers as of late?

Understood gman, however once Softball opened it up(and incurred the penalties) does our posting behind him constitute a "bump"?
We've been trying to ask this from the word go.

Had Softball written a new review, would it have been accepted as a "Review" seeing as how he never saw her again? Would it have been attached to her list of reviews for all to see? Or just buried in coed to disappear into obscurity?

Weren't the allegations relevant or valuable enough to update the review? Where's the gray area here? Just want to understand it clearly. Originally Posted by hotrix1

Softballs post was irrelevant and unbelievable based upon his past vast experience with the provider, any other post to that nonsense is a bumping.

But you will never get that point—you are an abuser of women who don’t agree with you—most providers are scared to say no to you as they may be a subject to your hate speech.

Now it’s your turn to flame me as the bad guy.

Your rein here is limited as a client, threats to the ladies reputation are all you got left.

Softballs post was irrelevant and unbelievable based upon his past vast experience with the provider, any other post to that nonsense is a bumping.

But you will never get that point—you are an abuser of women who don’t agree with you—most providers are scared to say no to you as they may be a subject to your hate speech.

Now it’s your turn to flame me as the bad guy.

Your rein here is limited as a client, threats to the ladies reputation are all you got left. Originally Posted by bc1969

Bc, you are a little late to the party. Or completely on the wrong thread, or not really sure what is going on here. This thread is about the improper infractions given to members that DID NOT bump the review and the inconsistent application of infractions. Read and research, it's your friend 😉

Thank you dj, it has become confusing—would you agree?

Maybe you should list your accomplishments as a Houston mod (that forum is a disaster) before you preach hate speech for all the sheepies in the panhandle. The Deerhunter handle does not hold credibility, your an easy targetmod. Originally Posted by bc1969

This should be good..........BC you need to get out more dh is no Houston Mod........Lmmfao