Sweet Rachel

[Monkeynut]

Moneynut thanked your post too, isn't that sweet?

I hope you didnt offend Moneynut by that ...... I wouldnt be offended as I love being in your thoughts, wherever they may come from

[El Gordo]

Oh Lucy, how well you use wit to add weight to your argument. Tacky. If I am donning a Batman suit it would not compliment your Curella de Ville outfit on one of our nights out. And I am sure you would hate to stand out.

Lucy has a Cruella de Ville outfit? I must be sure to request that one next time.

Its seems like trouble starts manifesting when these types of threads ever get opened, when the moderators ban a forum user/users they usually open a thread giving a reason why the said user/users was banned, they allow a little debate aswell about why certain user/users were banned they close that thread whenever they see fit, and when the moderators close the thread that should be the end of it. People trying to ressurect banned users and attempting to bring them into another debate is only undermining the staff and their methods and shows a lack of respect for them.

If we ever get to the point where we aren't allowed to question a ban then I am gone. I don't think JamesCork and MonkeyNut are making a very persuasive case, but they have every right to make it.

No Rayden, but its easy to see that the moderators get undermined a lot here, they are an asset to the site they are usually here 24/7 keeping the place nice and tidy, they put up with a lot of unnecessary shit though with some users who take them for granted, by questioning their abilities about a dozen times a week and making sneaky remarks to them.

So they have a hard job. So what? Most people do. Doesn't mean they don't sometimes make mistakes.

[JAMESCORK]

[QUOTE=El Gordo;444529]If we ever get to the point where we aren't allowed to question a ban then I am gone. I don't think JamesCork and MonkeyNut are making a very persuasive case, but they have every right to make it.

QUOTE]

I am not making a persuasive case... Perhaps, but at least I am attempting a case.

On the other hand you (can I assume you are the one making the case against) have made no case at all, save a linking of telephone numbers. Using the same telephone number surely merely proves that an individual is not truly independent, hardly a case for slander not to mention banning.

Ah…. I have enough of this, why do I even bother. People can read this and make up their own minds. It will not reverse any ban. But if it could just get us to open up our minds a bit more, and not be too ready to grab the pitchfork and flaming torch.

The irony is, the girl may be as guilt as hell with evidence as long as your arm. But until that evidence is produce, I for one will not throw the first stone.

I promise I will never post on this again, sorry if some of ye found it boring…Good morning everyone btw…

[coz22]

sorry,missed you this morning, evening rachel

I'm not rachel if you want you can pm me and will give you all the infor you want

[coz22]

coz22 = sweet rachel again? How she set up so many profiles in so short time? Eh?

No i am not rachel you can pm me for details if you want

[ThomasJ]

No i am not rachel you can pm me for details if you want

If not Sweet Rachel then you must be on PR staff.

[coz22]

If that is the case this gets lamer by the minute.

No it is not

[coz22]

If not Sweet Rachel then you must be on PR staff.

No have not got time to big a job

[Experienced Punter esq]

THE END

[monster_monster]

You sure you're not part of the EI crew Brockster? Just askin'.....

I'm thinking Westie, read his other posts!!!!