THIS IS NEITHER AN APOLOGY NOR AN EXPLANATION, AT LEAST NOT IN MY BOOK.
TRY AGAIN!!!

Nice try Cosar. This explains absolutely nothing. You say you began posting at Mick's Chat because you love FM. Good for you. That goes for me too. Yet, you say little or nothing about the double standards and hypocrisy at Mick's board, you defend people who've been exposed as self-serving parasites responsible for bringing down the band's image and dividing the fans, then you come here trying to "make peace" by attacking people who get nothing but grief (from fans like you) for working to expose the dirt surrounding the "official" Fleetwood Mac operations. How can you imply you're surprised and grief-stricken seeing there's a reason for fans to be devided? We've said so all along. You post in words of a peacemaker, while taking actions of a partisan. How do you expect people to react?

What you haven't done...in any post on this thread or in the old one you deleted...is explain WHY YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT MICK'S CHAT & THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE IT --AFTER KNOWING ABOUT THE WRONGS DONE TO FANS IN THE NAME OF FLEETWOOD MAC.

You say you WERE going to remove your registration from this board. Why? This board is not under a cloud like the other one is. Are you that thin skinned you can't handle some pointed discourse? Despite our disagreements in posts about Mick's Chat & the Fan Club, I'm not glad to read you want to leave for good. However, I repeat myself again...I fail to understand why you aren't considering leaving Mick's board? Hasn't anything about the whole controversy ever given you pause to think, leaving that board instead, is more appropriate and less questionable regarding your true motives, than coming here and doing what you've done the past few days?

Lurking at any board is no big deal. I can see wanting to lurk at Mick's site incase anything new is posted there first (Bwaaahaaa!) Staying there and being an active poster, giving the site a legitimacy it doesn't deserve, and continuing to cozy up to those with an idea that Mick, or anyone else in the band, actually reads what people say and approve of it all...that's another story. Yes, all the while never saying you agree Pip and Louise were wrongly defamed, then implying some of us here are being unfair to Jackie and Trinity...fans who've acted in blatant self-interest...none of it makes any sense. Where do you really stand?

The only thing that makes sense, unless you set the record straight yourself, is that others were NOT wrong in assuming your motives were questionable in light of your behavior. It may be correct to assume you've chosen to line up firmly on the other side. Perhaps your "claim" you care about fans getting along is completely insincere? Maybe some believe it makes issues appear less cut & dry as to what really happend if you post the way you have of late. Is this your purpose...presenting an image that some fans don't know which way to turn, or you feel it's not that clear who's right about issues surrounding the whole controversy? Explain yourself and I think there's no reason for you to feel under attack by fans on this board.

Saying you admit defeat means nothing. Defeat about what? Everything we've tried to discuss about the double-standards, hypocrisy, lies, cheating, pay-offs, and overall dirty dealings being played out about the fan club on Mick's board? OR defeat about being exposed as a double dealing hypocrite who wants to play it both ways and expect people not to call your actions and motives into question?

I believe I've tried, more than some of us "troublemakers," to be hospitable to you, and to let you know I'm not against you presenting a different point of view. I'm still not against you posting here, either. However, it's ridiculous not to see that nothing will ever be settled, or that your views will never be taken seriously, as long as you refuse to fully explain your conduct here and at Mick's board.

(edited for typos only)

You get an "immediate notice" because you set it up that way. Not everyone has. I didn't know PMs existed for months until I accidentally stumbled on them.

If you start a thread and no one posts a response, I feel you should be able to delete it.

If someone starts a thread, and you post a reply and want to delete it, I feel you should be able to delete it.

***HOWEVER***

If you start a thread and others post a response, and you then delete that thread (and hence deleting their posts), that functionability should NOT be allowed to general users.

Why?

CENSORSHIP!

:distress:
WHATS THE WORLD COMING TO?

PS - same here, I didnt realize for a while there was PM.

Geez... just when I was trying to bring PEACE to the "fan" thread... :distress: :distress: :distress:

What happens when that feature is turned off? Does the person sending a PM get notified you don't accept PM's?

Not accepting PMs is a different option, which you may also choose. I believe what we were referring to is the pop-up window that appears when someone sends you a PM. You may choose not to have that pop-up window. You may also choose to have the Ledge notify you by e-mail when you get a PM.

I still want to know what happens when someone sends a PM and the party does not accept it. Dose the sender get a message, or what? If anyone knows...

Ahhh....I signed up so long ago that I didn't realize that. I did know that you would get a message if someone is not allowing pms, or maybe that was at Micks site, but, whatever.

About the Pip/Louise thing...unless one of you specifically came to the board to press that as a concern, it's called hearsay.

Not when they post it...or when Louise does. And, that is what I base my opinion on. I believe her as she has nothing to gain from telling it. Are you saying that you question her honesty and if she changed or made that up? If not, why did you even post that?

Do you mean Mick's board? You really think a thread didicated to 'The email no-one was supposed to read' would be allowed to remain over there? I believe Louise attempted to post a link to the full story and it was promptly deleted.

Pip

And it was posted here in full so believe me it is definitely not hearsay.

Pip

Seeknpeace - That's what I said.

Otherwise, it is hearsay. That doesn't mean it's not true, people.

& I'm posting that because well...let's see...at the beginning of this thread you were commending our efforts and now everyone's getting all antsy.

If you went to the thread, you'd realize that no one has suggested the "UK Fan Story" is not true. Someone asked a question basically about how that could happen and the computer logistics of it all, another replied to it, then it was asserted that someone had already said the UK story was untrue, when, in fact, it wasn't. But no one actually accused anyone of anything. Don't take it out of hand yet, that story is the least of the concerns over there--no one is spending any time debating it's legitmacy.

Maybe we are saying the same thing. When they put that question in that thread, in relation to Louises experience and so forth, they were casting doubt and shadows on her honesty. There is no other way to see it. You do not have to come out and say something to say it. I will say it if I think it and it is important enough to me, but, others will not. There is a divide between the sites. While your efforts to try and get some answers over there is commendable, that doesn't change the intent of the person who asked the question about changing the ip addy's etc, on the heels of a discussion of Louises experience. If that was not the intent, could it be?

And as for Trin and Jackies issue about the who flew who, Knight is the one that made that suspect. He is the one that said "I flew them out". Perhaps he was trying to dazzle Louises eyes with his bribe and make her think he would do the same for her, but, in so doing he called into question that whole thing. We did not just make that up and everyone is missing that issue. Again, this falls back to the fearless leader.