For clearity, I am referring to his original post, the very first time Zing posted in this topic.
He simply did not make an attack, as you refer to, Is this a fact? Fact one: Zing said the "lawrence" comment in a later post. I read it and re read it over and over again to be certain before I made the comment. Yes Zing did become Deffensive when the topic turned to him, and in my opinion - take it for what it's worth - Some jumped (Offensivly) on him for commenting his rightful opinion... I get the distinct opinion if you don't agree with a few people here, and voice your concerns, that you are no longer welcome to speak your mind.
Perhaps Zing needed Tact in his later responses, but ultimatly he shouldn't have had to defend himself to begin with. Lastly, I am fully aware it was Snipe who first posted this thread, and asked a question...
Both Snipe and Zing had valid question/concerns. My first post's comment about the question being a fair one was actually about Snipe's comments, but in retrospect, Zing made a clear and to the point comment about the validity of someone's membership based solely on the number of posts. Mind you I know that the response was left open ended, but the subtle message was still there about validty...
Now for my response about the ORGINAL question by Snipe...
His question about this site being owned by a carrier or even carriers can actually be assumed true, if you have any understanding of advertising. It does make since that if a carrier advertises on your site, then they expect to be able to put a good face toward the public. Although it's not their name on the websites registration, they in effect pay for it, they in a since own a part of it... Have you ever thought that might be Snipe's original concern, not the quick answer, but ultimatly who interest does the site trully represent...
Not saying thats how I feel, about the current situation, but that is certainly how I interperted the post by Snipe...
-Joe Bohannon
Bakersfield, CA
Wannabe
He simply did not make an attack, as you refer to, Is this a fact? Fact one: Zing said the "lawrence" comment in a later post. I read it and re read it over and over again to be certain before I made the comment. Yes Zing did become Deffensive when the topic turned to him, and in my opinion - take it for what it's worth - Some jumped (Offensivly) on him for commenting his rightful opinion... I get the distinct opinion if you don't agree with a few people here, and voice your concerns, that you are no longer welcome to speak your mind.
Perhaps Zing needed Tact in his later responses, but ultimatly he shouldn't have had to defend himself to begin with. Lastly, I am fully aware it was Snipe who first posted this thread, and asked a question...
Both Snipe and Zing had valid question/concerns. My first post's comment about the question being a fair one was actually about Snipe's comments, but in retrospect, Zing made a clear and to the point comment about the validity of someone's membership based solely on the number of posts. Mind you I know that the response was left open ended, but the subtle message was still there about validty...
Now for my response about the ORGINAL question by Snipe...
His question about this site being owned by a carrier or even carriers can actually be assumed true, if you have any understanding of advertising. It does make since that if a carrier advertises on your site, then they expect to be able to put a good face toward the public. Although it's not their name on the websites registration, they in effect pay for it, they in a since own a part of it... Have you ever thought that might be Snipe's original concern, not the quick answer, but ultimatly who interest does the site trully represent...
Not saying thats how I feel, about the current situation, but that is certainly how I interperted the post by Snipe...
-Joe Bohannon
Bakersfield, CA
Wannabe
