Banned .....

[Michael]

The off shore moderator for the NC Natura site, spjk, who resides in
England, and who has banned all efforts for us to tell the truth about
irregularities found in Billy Martins stories has asked that we allow
him to post a huge outcry against us here.

This post was not allowed and he was banned. Basically he was upset
about a post by cyndiann. Cyndiann has acknowledged that she in part
misread the matter she was posting about.

Spjk was saying that he was not affiliated with Bill Martin. Of course
he is the moderator of Billy Martins web site. How does that work ??
We thought it fitting to just ban him as he has done all of us. If he
wants to let us into NC to rebutt Billy's posts about us, then of
course we will allow him to post here.

It was determined this banning action was not a credibility problem
for us since we are not only telling the truth, but posting supporting
documents.

Michael T.
www.fairwindlakes.com

[Jonathan Palmiter]

Maybe I shouldn't have, but I invited spjk to visit here and
read the truth about Bill Martin. Spjk gave me me some
"blessings" on www.cnvillage.org . I replied and thanked
him and gave him the link to here. I told him I would not
return to NC because of Bill Martin and the fact that he
had fooled everyone there into believing his lies. I would
have never invited him had I known he just wanted to come
here and post against us. I won't invite anyone else from NC.

Jon-Marc

Michael <mthom...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[allnude]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael" <mthom...@tampabay.rr.com>
To: "Billyville" <billy...@googlegroups.com>

>
> The off shore moderator for the NC Natura site, spjk, who resides in
> England, and who has banned all efforts for us to tell the truth about
> irregularities found in Billy Martins stories has asked that we allow
> him to post a huge outcry against us here.
>

I think you should have let him post michael--all he would have accomplished
would have been at odds with the facts that have been presented in the
files, and he'd have made himself look foolish. I'll take that as a plus for
us--not to ban different points of view, and to post a tantrum would only
strengthen our points. Just my thoughts......

Mark Ashworth

[Michael]

Thanks Mark ....

In this case that author has no business posting here with the tripe
that was intended.

We are going to keep on the track that a discussion document has to be
originated to prove the ensuing topic discussions. Then differing
opions are welcome so long as they are not personal as this rejected
post was all about.. Spjk had no originating document, was incredibly
out of line with his assault on individuals posting here and only
signed the intended post with ... s.

There will be more documents and opportunity to comment on their
reality one way or the other over the weekend.

I do agree with you in principle Mark, but unsupported personal
attacks will be sent to the remove file. A supported personal attack
for cause, well that is another matter and most likely would be
allowed, with supporting documents not just person dislike.

By the way Mark did you happen to see the proposed new County
Ordanance against anyone frequenting a nude place. I am going to post
it here tomorrow.

Many thanks for your courtesy and input.

Michael T.
ww.fairwindlakes.com