ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour.
Yep, didn't share their views on hot-button issues.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
lol.......that was not the person whom I knew called my employer so that one would be news to me if true. It would be just as goofy as any other time as toy airplanes and my work are hard to tie together. "slanderous statement"? Careful with 3rd had stuff Jim. ........ I'm sure I'd have been sued if that were the case. To that end, the mistakes I made, I admitted to and apologized when appropriate.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
I don't. Just pointing out some obvious difference in standards....................and providing some history.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
...lol......... guess so.
