Wow, it's getting interesting over there in the Land of the Lotus Eaters.
BBB just posted the following:
"I was of mixed thoughts about whether to respond to this, but heard it had been posted. I'm not willing to leave on an untruth. Mike did not communicate with me in any way he was going to, or considering going to, or any permutation of nathan returning as a subject of anything.
The best I can figure is he might be referencing something now out of context and out of memory from 6-7 years ago, among the couple hundred hours of work adminning her accounts.
I don't think it's a rule violation to say a PM didn't happen, as opposed to quoting one. Mike will have to look to himself as to why he would put a boot in my backside and say this.
If we HAD discussed it in private, I would never have posted my opinion on the matter, because once an admin decision is made, the admins should present a united front. But Mike might also have not done the reinstatement if he knew what I thought. Idk. I'm no longer green, and have heard nothing from him, so I guess we're done here."
__________________________________________________ ______________
She basically has accused him of lying.
How will the Wiz respond?
Posters have been nuked IIRC for calling members "liars," so this should be interesting.
At minimum it is incumbant upon Mike to explain all the circumstances surrounding his claim that he told her he was going to reinstate Nathan, i.e. when, how, and what was said.
Amazing...the foundation is crumbling...
Reply With Quote