The above post of attorney 28 is the correct explanation of it all. Thanks for consolidating it all. To all of you who said I was a little harsh, you have the right to your opinion. I was just trying to show everyone that this guy was going to tow the company line first and foremost by his own posts. I do know he does provide some valuable information to people and is a cherished member of this community. However, all of us must follow the rules and the rules on CC are clear. If there is a change, RP will inform us. Chuck told me of the difficulties he has had with the brokers, sellers etc. and I didn't want to come here and be a pain as someone who hasn't been in this community for a long time. RP said he'd make a decision about the situation and I, of course, will abide by his ruling. We'll see if all the involved parties adhere to his decision. Happy landings to everyone.

Let's take a look at the sections that discuss "loyalty" and "revenue generation" (I should have included goodwill, as well) before we assume that William is stepping out of his Black Helicopter and grabbing away Starpoints.

Folks, if you believe that, you completely miss the reason that *wood keeps a representative here in the first place.

Noble of you to support the moderators. However, they are not infallible; everyone should have some accountability.

Exactly. And using different e-maill accounts won't insulate you if your FT name is already in the database.

He is one himself...and I agree with you that they are not infallible. However, I think in this case it was a course of action that was at least consistent with previous instances.

True. In any case, I find this "database" profiling, which might at least partly occur without the consent of the people being profiled, a bit suspect.

Reading through this thread it is quite clear to me that William was not responding to the CC offer or asking a question about the offer. He was rendering an opinion as to the validity of the offer and the possible consquences of that offer, which in CC is diffentally off-topic. Good job moderators.



------------------
dallasflyer, Living in Denver and Dallas, oh boy!

Oh boy more the "psuedo-legal opinions"

mike

If you have nothing to add to a thread, at least make sure the nothing you have to add is error-free. Not too much to ask for a few words without substance.

Oh you would rather me add lots of words with no substance? Seem we have quite a few examples already in this thread.
mike

No, I would prefer if you either add some substance or remain silent. But if you want to keep embarrassing yourself, that is your call to make.

I forgot to add:

Thanks for the legal advice - much appreciated.
But my call my opinion.

Now since opinion is so highly valued here is it my imagination that MOST of the objections to the Lurkers participation on these boards come either from a few "sour grape" types or members who reside outside the USA.
mike

1) I think the objections raised by some were not at all with Lurker's participation on the boards in general but with the warnings he gave out and some requests from the past to edit members' comments. I have yet to see a post where someone would object to the Lurker's presence on the board in general, I would say that 99 % of all posts say the contrary.

2) What significance does it have to you whether posters reside outside the USA or within the USA and why do you believe posters outside the USA would be more inclined to object to the Lurker?

Lets forget the former group ("the sour grapes" - they cant be placated) and deal with the latter, it might just be that like everything in life there is a trade-off.

The non-USA members are much less likely to stay at SPG properties and consequently place much less value in the assistance provided by the Lurker here, so its very convenient to take the moral high road.
Fortunately William is more temperate than I , seeing some of the stuff posted -I myself would just tell this board to get stuffed.
mike

[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited Feb 26, 2004).]