You guys are really making me want to see a link to that.mirkwood wrote:I read a lot of stuff on that forum and did not see a post like that. I did a search and couldn't find anything remotely similar. As for losing sleep, you place wayyyy too much importance on yourself. :ymparty:
@-) #-o And the link is .... ?Obrien wrote:You'll just have to go look yerself..............................................................
Muerte Rosa wrote:What would you say if i told you i had a plethora of identities on here and all but this one has been banned?
SmallFarm wrote:I can name a few... :-B
Muerte Rosa wrote:Go for it
She does sound an awful lot like Juliette - but Juliette claimed to be older (and I think she would have eventually told me via pm if it was her). (Juliette was Andrew52 and did an awful good job of hiding it, but eventually her real self leaked out.) Sen, if you are Juliette, you really should have pm'd me and told me. :-wThomas wrote:Juliette. Andrew52.
Nothing nefarious here--I don't know what name he used here. I'll ask him.BrianM wrote:And you conveniently don't know the username so there's no way I can go back and prove you wrong. /:)AI2.0 wrote:Three.
Just received a response from a poster who said that he was warned by Jules and then banned in August during the purge, I'm not sure what the name was that he used here. He also says that during the five years or so he posted here he never got a single message from you, Brian. I suppose that would be why he believes Jules was responsible.
Okay.Obrien wrote:I honestly don't know a link, and if I did, I wouldn't know how to embed it.
I hope you were not 'warned' for saying Kathryn was banned.Nan wrote:I have been warned. I will clearly state that i was mis informed about Kathryn being banned. I truly thought she had been or I wouldn't have said it. Brian says only he has banned people. Now I still say that Jules has been very unkind to anyone who doesn't believe the way she does.
Perhaps this was the case for others who could not log in, but had no warnings - and they assumed they had been banned?AI2.0 wrote:As she explained, it seemed that maybe it was a computer error. This happens sometimes and it does make the poster believe that they've been shut out of the board--and considering that there are bannings which take place, it was a possibility.
The sad thing about so many of the complaints in this thread is that none of them are specific enough for me to say "yes, that happened" or "no, that's not true" (well, except the complaints that I've already stated are not true or have otherwise commented on). I don't mind people voicing their concerns about what they believe is happening on the forum but at least have some facts on your side. :-wAI2.0 wrote:Nothing nefarious here--I don't know what name he used here. I'll ask him.BrianM wrote:And you conveniently don't know the username so there's no way I can go back and prove you wrong. /:)AI2.0 wrote:Three.
Just received a response from a poster who said that he was warned by Jules and then banned in August during the purge, I'm not sure what the name was that he used here. He also says that during the five years or so he posted here he never got a single message from you, Brian. I suppose that would be why he believes Jules was responsible.
Of course she is not. No chance LOLThomas wrote: Juliette. Andrew52.
Why, because you are?Regina wrote:Thomas wrote: Juliette. Andrew52.
Jules is nowhere near as nasty as are her detractors.Nan wrote:Jbalm he said I had to be honest. I was.
No Regina is Janadele. :o)BrianM wrote:Why, because you are?Regina wrote:Thomas wrote: Juliette. Andrew52.
well this is a pro-constitutional site so treason is taken very seriously I guess :pBrianM wrote:Oh, I just remembered... and maybe these are the people you are referring to (though I would still like to know specifically who says they got banned and never received any communication from me).. there were actually a few people that got banned because they were using the forum to recruit for another forum AND on the other forum they were talking 'smack' about this forum and some of the people on it.
:))Epistemology wrote:well this is a pro-constitutional site so treason is taken very seriously I guess :p
:))Obrien wrote:jbalm is Denver snuffer, and also hugh jass, and also willie Wonka (off forum only, of course) and he moonlights as DarwinBagley.
Just the same way you're judging now? What's the difference? Do two wrongs make a right?wrsales wrote:friendsandfun is honestly pretty scary. While they believe they are there to protect the Church, and the Brethren, it is one of the most judgmental and closed minded spaces I have ever encountered. A while back Jared (BallamDoctrine) was asking some sincere questions he had and he got beat down and criticized endlessly. Not to mention an entire thread bad mouthing Jules, where everyone could chime in and talk about how terrible she is. As long as you aren't going to disagree with anything they say, that's a good place to be. But if you ever have any questions or concerns, that's probably not the place to go.
Do you know why some people have a sixth sense? Because there is no sign or evidence of the first five? :))Muerte Rosa wrote:Because all of my other talents are useless on you mortals.
