honey said:
<<What is one to think?
1) Are we to think that she would actually pass such a vitriolic judgement about a site she has never seen?
2) OR, are we to think that she blatantly lied when she said she had never read it?
This is not a rhetorical question. Answers would be most welcome.>>
--Thanks for the hanging curve, honey!
The answer is (1). However, unlike some other posters here, she bases her 'judgement' on evidence, rather than wishful thinking.
Here is the evidence: She knows math and I don't post there.
She knows you post there, she knows you copy-and-paste newslettercheat's and stockalot's posts there, she knows pig posts there, she knows kirk posts there. She probably assumes that basher posts there.
She also knows, based upon the testimony of math and myself, that a non-basher with the alias bbaddict posted there briefly, and was treated with incredible rudeness by you and kirk, and kirk's sycophants, and essentially stopped posting as a result of the rude treatment.
She also knows that your board is part of 101, which includes the "free discussion" board, which is run by kirk. She knows that kirk kicked me off the board, and she knows the content of my posts here and on Yahoo, and she can certainly figure out that there was no legitimate reason for me being kicked off.
She also knows that math left that board because he didn't like the way kirk was running it.
She also knows fish was kicked off that board.
Personally, I think she has more than enough evidence to draw a conclusion without getting herself all dirty by going over there! |
