>>I agree with Bonnie and that is because we probably have the same informations based on what appeared to be a double standard. But the thing is that we don't know the deals that were made between you and Kevin or anyone else for that matter. So it's difficult to argue past that point
>
>What "appeared" is not a fact. Anyone who uses UT frequently should know that we are extremely professional.

You're right appearances are not facts. I never said otherwise. Where did I said so?

And you're absolutely right when you say that you are extremely professional.

>As for your request, that won't be discussed. Refer to first point made here.

Request?????? When Did I request something?

>We're smart enough to talk with anyone at any level in this community to explain specific issues when they arise with good manners

Smart enough. I'm beginning to wonder now because it seems you put words where there are none or interpret things the way you think they sould be interpreted.

Good manners. Are'nt you the one acting like a bully here?

>...As for arguing, I really don't see your point.

Arguing?????? I never argued over something that trivial. I only argue for things that seem to be of importance. I only noted how things looked a given way. Nothing more. It's none of my business and I don't want to know more about it. I just made an observation.

> I replied to Bonnie because her post was made in a way that it could have made several people to believe that we simply apply our procedures on new members only and not on regular members. It was my job to rectify that statement.

Once again I don't see what needed to be rectified. To me it did'nt looked like she was accusing you of anything. But I'll let Bonnie argue with you on that.

>As for the initial message of this thread, the member did one post. Based on all topics discussed in it, he certainly understood by now that the content was written more in a way of spam than to provide more on the developers needs of this service. There are ways to write things and I believe that message could have been written differently so it wouldn't have looked as a spam.

Here I can't say a thing because I never read the rules. I'm following my rules. Usually those rules have kept me out of trouble all my life <g>

>So, I expect he would probably do otherwise next time and we all welcome his presence on the Universal Thread either as a developer or as a vendor.

It's just a matter of following the rules I guess ;-)



P.S.

Perhaps in the future you should react on things said and not on what they appear to mean. Don't interpret it won't get you nowhere. Nobody will be able to back you on things you invent.

Then again perhaps you have a stressfull day or week or whatever your problem and decided to take it on me. Is that the case?