Not speaking of the perma-banned...

[bobcollum]

^ Doesn't get it.

I'm flabbergasted.

 

[thanatos144]

^ Doesn't get it.

I'm flabbergasted.

That happens a lot with you....Must have used words to big for you to read.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Didn't get that either.

 

[cereal_killer]

It doesn't really make any sense to me. Why, as a board, do we grant any respect to someone who obviously had such a low-level of respect for the board?

More than anything I'm bothered by the waste of potential comedy caused by not being able to discuss explosive/hilarious exits.

Is there any particular reason for the rule, and how's about we change it?

I'm open to allowing it but I have to run it by everyone else.

 

[Sherry]

It doesn't really make any sense to me. Why, as a board, do we grant any respect to someone who obviously had such a low-level of respect for the board?

More than anything I'm bothered by the waste of potential comedy caused by not being able to discuss explosive/hilarious exits.

Is there any particular reason for the rule, and how's about we change it?

I'm open to allowing it but I have to run it by everyone else.

 

[bobcollum]

It doesn't really make any sense to me. Why, as a board, do we grant any respect to someone who obviously had such a low-level of respect for the board?

More than anything I'm bothered by the waste of potential comedy caused by not being able to discuss explosive/hilarious exits.

Is there any particular reason for the rule, and how's about we change it?

I'm open to allowing it but I have to run it by everyone else.

 

[Conservative]

I'm open to allowing it but I have to run it by everyone else.

maybe a non-binding vote thread so the board could express their opinions? I's suggest it not be a public ballot, s some might want their opinions kept confidential.