John Sisker wrote:
> I feel the following statement by Jim pretty much sums up Mike's demand of
> how I present my information. Likewise, this was all discussed, in quite
> some detail, long ago. If you weren't part of that discussion, and are
> obviously now on the outside looking in, I have no reason or interest to
> even responds to such comments. If you want reasons, go back and research
> this yourself. The bottom line is, what's good for the goose is good for the
> gander.
>
> John Sisker
>
>
> "I noticed that you have replied with this to all of Sisker's News Posts but
> NONE of Goldenberg's? What is good for one is good for the other or does
> this not apply to a favored member of your little clic?"
>
> Jim
>
>
I've got Ray killfiled so I don't see his posts but I will say this much
- Ray is as guilty as John from what I recall of his posts. So we're
back to where we were in the "9 out of 10 thread" - why don't both of
you guys remove your ads to come in line with the charter and we can all
get back to where this ng once was - a forum for people to freely
exchange ideas without fear of scam artists like John Sisker spamming
the ng with messages that go against what the originators of this ng
wanted in the first place.
Do what's right John! |
