This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Oskar1 on 17 February 2012 - 21:02
Hey GSD,
this post again shows clearly that you do have an agenda with Jan - TOS are there to be respected by all, and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
You now pointed out at least 3 times that Jan is banned because of violating TOS - hey, we got it the first time !
Please inform me when voicing an opinion becomes voilating TOS - that would be the time to crawl back under the stone.
To argue with you is simply fruitless, everytime you see no out, you switch to something different. I realized that in our pm's, which I wont post, I learned that now, it's against the TOS. That's practical, if one voices something in the pm's that wont comply with TOS, one cant even use the pm as proof - it' not allowed, it's against the TOS !
If an Admin post something in a pm, that would be dicraminating, the member cant publish it - it's against the TOS.
I will still use this plattform to gain info & to spread info, but I sure will double check to stay in compliance with TOS ! Allmighty !
Ulli
this post again shows clearly that you do have an agenda with Jan - TOS are there to be respected by all, and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
You now pointed out at least 3 times that Jan is banned because of violating TOS - hey, we got it the first time !
Please inform me when voicing an opinion becomes voilating TOS - that would be the time to crawl back under the stone.
To argue with you is simply fruitless, everytime you see no out, you switch to something different. I realized that in our pm's, which I wont post, I learned that now, it's against the TOS. That's practical, if one voices something in the pm's that wont comply with TOS, one cant even use the pm as proof - it' not allowed, it's against the TOS !
If an Admin post something in a pm, that would be dicraminating, the member cant publish it - it's against the TOS.
I will still use this plattform to gain info & to spread info, but I sure will double check to stay in compliance with TOS ! Allmighty !
Ulli
by GSD Admin on 17 February 2012 - 21:02
The reason I keep saying it is people keep saying this is personal. I do not know Jan and therefore for me it has nothing to do with it being personal.
The ban on posting PMs has been in place since you signed up. It has always been there.
PM=private mesage not public message
You state: TOS are there to be respected by all, and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
It is the same for you, go post this thread to a blog and send me the link and see what happens. If Sirius went and posted this thread on a blog he would be treated the same. A PM would be sent and then when it wasn't taken down he would be banned whether he is an admin or not and to suggest otherwise is non-sense.
He broke the rules and was dealt with by the TOS, no one went outside the TOS to ban him. That is the bottom line and you can continue to throw bias at me all you want, the admins and Oli know better.
Since you posted that I am biased please show me one forum that a member has copied our threads and hasn't been banned. You can't because there is none and to get up here and say otherwise is wrong. For me to be biased I would have had to allow others to break this same rule but I haven't and for you folks to say otherwise is wrong.
The ban on posting PMs has been in place since you signed up. It has always been there.
PM=private mesage not public message
You state: TOS are there to be respected by all, and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
It is the same for you, go post this thread to a blog and send me the link and see what happens. If Sirius went and posted this thread on a blog he would be treated the same. A PM would be sent and then when it wasn't taken down he would be banned whether he is an admin or not and to suggest otherwise is non-sense.
He broke the rules and was dealt with by the TOS, no one went outside the TOS to ban him. That is the bottom line and you can continue to throw bias at me all you want, the admins and Oli know better.
Since you posted that I am biased please show me one forum that a member has copied our threads and hasn't been banned. You can't because there is none and to get up here and say otherwise is wrong. For me to be biased I would have had to allow others to break this same rule but I haven't and for you folks to say otherwise is wrong.
by Oskar1 on 17 February 2012 - 22:02
GSD,
again, I have no problem with jan beeing banned - where do you get that from ? I believe I pointed that out several times, he violated TOS, got banned, so what ? The world wont go down because of that.
I stated : TOS are there to be respected by all and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
I never intendet to post PM's, where do get that from now ? But I will steer you to what I ment - the B.Anderson post ! I t clearly violates TOS, but yet you are not taking it down. As you explained to me, you called that poster, and found it very reasonable what that poster had to say - oh, because a total starnger to you, states something and you take that for proof and as a ligitimat proof to verfy that the thread is not violating TOS ! In that thread it says, posted under " Beware of man in Las Vegas AKA Jason Feliciano ", accusing this man of fraud & decive -
TOS :
You may not :
5;6;8 and maybe #7 also.
B.Anderson maybe right in what she claims, but there is no proof whatsoever provided.
Hm, let's see how I come up with the so out of the box thinking that you may be biased....... you call one poster to verify something, from the other you demand proof in writing, if that is not enough, we need a little more proof. With B.Anderson it's enough proof that a stranger tells you something - with others official staements of official breed registrys are not even close to be enough (I got it, they were called pre investigative nonsense !)
Yup you are right, how in the world could I have the feeling that you may be biased ? Please accept my sincere apology.
Ulli
again, I have no problem with jan beeing banned - where do you get that from ? I believe I pointed that out several times, he violated TOS, got banned, so what ? The world wont go down because of that.
I stated : TOS are there to be respected by all and to be the same for all, you know what I mean ?
I never intendet to post PM's, where do get that from now ? But I will steer you to what I ment - the B.Anderson post ! I t clearly violates TOS, but yet you are not taking it down. As you explained to me, you called that poster, and found it very reasonable what that poster had to say - oh, because a total starnger to you, states something and you take that for proof and as a ligitimat proof to verfy that the thread is not violating TOS ! In that thread it says, posted under " Beware of man in Las Vegas AKA Jason Feliciano ", accusing this man of fraud & decive -
TOS :
You may not :
5;6;8 and maybe #7 also.
B.Anderson maybe right in what she claims, but there is no proof whatsoever provided.
Hm, let's see how I come up with the so out of the box thinking that you may be biased....... you call one poster to verify something, from the other you demand proof in writing, if that is not enough, we need a little more proof. With B.Anderson it's enough proof that a stranger tells you something - with others official staements of official breed registrys are not even close to be enough (I got it, they were called pre investigative nonsense !)
Yup you are right, how in the world could I have the feeling that you may be biased ? Please accept my sincere apology.
Ulli
by GSD Admin on 17 February 2012 - 22:02
She has the proof and stated in her post to contact her for the information. I checked with Banderson and she has all the proof and it is in AKCs hands.
Please read the TOS as it relates to talking about facts and personal experiences.
It is better than proclaiming that this will happen when in fact the letter from the SV said no decision had been made and it was still being investigated.
BAnderson is not here claiming to know what AKC is going to do, she posted the facts--facts that she personally experienced.
Night and day.
You can continue to claim bias but you have no proof of that. But hell throw it out and see if it sticks.
Please read the TOS as it relates to talking about facts and personal experiences.
It is better than proclaiming that this will happen when in fact the letter from the SV said no decision had been made and it was still being investigated.
BAnderson is not here claiming to know what AKC is going to do, she posted the facts--facts that she personally experienced.
Night and day.
You can continue to claim bias but you have no proof of that. But hell throw it out and see if it sticks.
by Oskar1 on 17 February 2012 - 22:02
Oh Lordy,
I will leave it at that, aint worth my time.
It sure was a nice time, when one was still allowed to call a fraud, a fraud when it was seen !
I am going to bed.
All the best to you guys.
Ulli
I will leave it at that, aint worth my time.
It sure was a nice time, when one was still allowed to call a fraud, a fraud when it was seen !
I am going to bed.
All the best to you guys.
Ulli
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
