Alabama   •   Arkansas   •   Florida   •   Georgia   •   Kentucky   •   Louisiana   •   Mississippi   •   Oklahoma   •   Tennessee   •   Texas
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Answering to your consituents.

Posted by Gilligan 
Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 11:24AM
So it would seem that a board member thinks it's a bad idea to discuss why he votes particular ways... I don't follow... didn't we elect them so shouldn't they explain their reasoning for voting? I know in todays politics it doesn't seem like our elected representatives don't do that... but I'm pretty sure they are supposed to.

For the record, I also sent this message to Will Corey and he did respond and though I didn't agree with his reasons at least he answered me.

Here is the exchange:

-----------------My first message-------------------

I was just curious if you would enlighten me on
why you voted against me in helping out
with the forum?

I've given of myself every where I have
gone (including the use of my laptop and
wireless connection for SNACs) and have created Bagtag
databases for all here to use (including ones that
aren't even close to my region). I have given the
instructions on how to fix website bugs and
the code needed to be replaced. Then when I volunteer
to help out (something I typically get paid over
$75/hour to do) it gets voted down by half of the board.

I would just like a direct response in
regards to why you voted the way you did.

Thanks,
Kevin

------------The response------------

I'm not going to justify why I vote a certain way
each time I vote. I believe that starts a bad
precedence. So be happy that you have been given
this priviledge and don't worry about how it
came about. Thanks Marc

-----------My response to that-----------

So what you are saying is that you shouldn't
have to answer to your constituents?!

I guess if you are up on current politics then I
could see why you might think that is a "bad
precedent".

-----------The Response----------------

If you insist on stirring things up instead of
focusing on moving the SNDG forward then your
current priviledges will be short lived. I would
advise you not to worry about how and why people
vote and to just move on. I will not respond to
this matter agian.
Thanks Marc

----------------My Response-------------

So trying to understand where the resistance to me trying to help out comes from, is "stirring things up"? I feel that you don't even know who I am and maybe we should get to know each other and I figured I'd start by trying to understand why you felt I wouldn't be a good fit to help out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 11:46AM
I bet Hogman would of voted in favor :)
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 12:32PM
Was this really necessary? I can only see this causing ill feelings. To me, this is more of an issue between two people, not something that vastly affects the SN as a whole, but that's my opinion. And really, it could have been handled between you two with PMs, rather than taking it public. What is to be gained from this ?

rWc3523
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 01:12PM
I guess I left out the fact that this was several days ago and he never responded again. Which he said he wouldn't so it seemed that private talks were brought to a halt.

I'm sorry but I do feel that it should be public knowledge if someone we elect isn't looking to answer to the people. He had his chance to do the right thing and he didn't. Will did and I applauded him for that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 01:18PM
If I really wanted to blast him I would have gone to the popular forum... this one rarely has viewers and this is where it belonged.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 01:45PM
Well, honestly, this sounds more like an issue between you and Marc, rather than you and "the people." I haven't heard anyone BUT you ask him why he voted the way he did. BTW, why did Josh vote against it? The vote wsa 3-3 (funny that it was along regional lines basically). I also told Keith that NOTHING was said about this being brought up or voted on prior to the meeting. Honestly, I don't care if you want to update results. If you have the time to convert files to Excel since so many people were spoiled by JK they don't do it themselves or won't learn how, that's fine. I have no problem with it. As far as wholesale forum admin privileges, THAT should have been brought up in public before it was voted on.

Just my opinion.

Russ C.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 02:16PM
This dialog is very concerning...as BoD members who serve for the entire SN community, when you vote you should have the better interest of the SN at heart. ...it is sometimes hard to do that if a person has a personal issue at hand.

...That's why ALL board members should vote with the best interest of the SN at heart, that way when asked to explain the reason for their vote...they won't have to get defensive and say just be glad it was voted in your favor.

The problem in this case, seems like a certain BoD member has a personal problem with Kevin and can't man up to say the real reason he voted a certain way. If you had voted in the best interest of the SN...you wouldn't have to skirt around the question by saying Board members shouldn't have to.

On the Contrary to your comment that explaining your votes sets a bad precedence...REFUSING to explain them when asked sets a bad precedence. You are showing the entire SN community that you have no credibility. ...now, as a person you may...but the aura you are giving off right now is that you don't.

Russ is correct, this issue WAS between you and Kevin, however...this is where the issue concerning the entire SN comes into play...It has now been made public and we are aware that you are refusing to answer the question. This is a HUGE concern.

Russ, turn the tables from Kevin to yourself...what if you were the one asking the question and he refused to answer you...You may not feel the same way as you do now.

I am very concerned about the current BoD...I thought after the voting debacle you guys would become a little more accountable for your actions. This doesn't look good for the future. Granted there are a few that are doing the right things, and trying to do the right things....and answering questions when asked...hopefully that kind of credibility and self respect can become contagious.
Anonymous User
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 02:27PM
As far as it being brought before the public, I am the person that brought it before the BoD. If there is a problem with that I am the person that needs to shoulder that responsibility.

My thoughts were simple:
1. We were falling behind in doing the forum administrative things.
2. Will (from what I was told) didn't have the time because of school and work. I believe Will should put school and work ahead of the BoD, because that is what is going to carry him through life.
3. Kevin has the time and knowledge to do the forum correctly.
4. Kevin volunteered his time and talents.

I have a question.

What do people think Kevin is going to do? He is not going to destroy the site. He is not going to abuse the rights and privileges we gave him. If thing go bad we can revoke every thing.

Just because Kevin is out spoken doesn’t mean he is going to hurt the SN.

I spent 4 days with Kevin at the SNAC and 18 hours driving with him, he is one of the most upfront, honest people out there. I was elected to help the SN and I felt by putting Kevin in this position it would benefit SN.

I have no problem explaining why I make the decisions I make. I don’t think every little thing that comes up needs to go to the masses. If it does why do we have a BoD?

I have always said I will be responsible for all things I say and do; in this case I am the one that the SN community should be upset with, if you disagree with this situation.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 02:53PM
V for Vendetta.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 03:02PM
"Russ, turn the tables from Kevin to yourself...what if you were the one asking the question and he refused to answer you...You may not feel the same way as you do now."

Cristin, you're probably right, generally speaking.
And now that it IS public, Marc should just go ahead and state his reasons.

As far as the new board goes, they've met once, so give them some time to get in sync. There will be plenty of time to take them to task over the next year.

rWc3523
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 03:52PM
I have no problems with people not liking me personally... If I did, I would probably be skitzo. ;)

My problem is that I don't know Marc and he doesn't know me. I would like to know why he chose to vote against me so as to "better get to know him" (Colbert reference). This WAS a personal matter but because Marc refused to answer my question then it became something that I would think even you would want to know about because as Cristin (did I get it right?) said... if the tables were turned, no matter the issue at hand I would have your back and want to know why it wasn't addressed.

Some would say that the votes should remain private... are you crazy? How are we to know how you are doing in representing us if you have no clue where you stand on issues. Keith wears them on his sleeve, and bravo for that, but some don't come on here and discuss their opinions so we don't know them or their ideals. This needs to change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 07:41PM
I say a little bit of patience is the key. Marc voted his way for a reason, i would think his reason would be because he doesn't know Kevin personally nor professionally, only what he sees/reads on the forum (this is only a guess). I think if 3 of the BOD members had an issue with this, then the vote could of been on hold and the BOD members could of called or emailed or pm'd Kevin asking him what ALL he could bring to the table for a professional job like this (apart from his personal posts). Since it was already voted on then we just need to have patience like Josh said. I know nobody wants to get too far backed up, but it will work out over time. Marc's user-name has only been in use since June I think, and he has only posted 10 times thus far, but I'm sure (well i hope) he reads what people on the forum has to say and hopefully he'll (like others) explain certain things he feels that needs explaining.

Terry Zeringue
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 21, 2009 09:24PM
I agree completely Terry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 01:15AM
Okay it looks like this won't be put to bed until I formally respond to this matter. First of all I take issue with people jumping to conclusions before they have all the facts. I am not tied to my lap top like it seems other people around here. At the time of these first inquiries I was out of town on business and had very little spare time to do anything besides getting something to eat and try and fit in some rest. By the time I read the initial e-mails I was quite frankly caught by surprise. I believed it to be a dead issue since Kevin got the tie break vote from Jim, I thought okay, lets move forward. But apparently now I have to "explain" my NO vote. You must be like one of my kids, always looking for some way of turning that no into a maybe and then to the all important yes! Albeit at this point in the game I fail to see what you gain other than stirring up the pot. You have the votes needed but that's not good enough for you is it. And there's the rub, nothing is ever good enough for you gilligan. From the limited time that I have been perusing this site I have noticed you (and a few others like you) that seem to get their rocks off by stuffing this site full of inane material.
If we are going to try and do our part to improve the sndg over the next 2 years I believe we need less quantity and more substance and focus on creating a mission statement along with a list of reachable goals that we may achieve in the next 2 years. We can't do that if we are going to get our feelings hurt every time something doesn't go our way. Sure I voted no, but that was that I was over and ready to move on; but NO, I've got to respond to mudslinging. Which I don't appreciate. And if you don't see me respond to an e-mail in a timely manner, I could very well be out of pocket. So go old school and give a brother a phone call! You may call me anytime (within reason of course)
My cell phone # is 901-601-5064 I would be glad to hear from you, especially if we can avoid these types of faux pas.
So to put it bluntly I voted no to the KING of muckraking. Now I suppose I owe you an apology as well? Sorry, but you asked for the explanation and there it is. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. Now can we move forward? Marc
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 03:06AM
Marc, i don't get your post at ALL. My last post i tried to give you the benefit of doubt. Why wouldn't you want someone to volunteer their services? What have YOU done to help the SN? Sure you have helped Memphis in a tremendous way, but if Kevin is willing to help out the
SN when why not let him? Is it because of the reason i stated in my last post? If not then what is it? What have YOU done to help the SN as a whole other than Memphis (which I love)? If you're going to vote no for a person to give his expertise, then please give the reason. It seems that you are beating around the bush. I'm not knocking you at all, but since you posted about the subject, I have to call you out for not answering any of the questions that have come to surface. Your first sentence is "Okay it looks like this won't be put to bed until I formally respond to this matter", but you NEVER responded to the matter of the subject at hand. If someone is willing to take his time to help out the BOD (by minimizing what y'all have to do on the forum), then why not support it? I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just wondering why you wouldn't let Kevin take on this responsibility. I don't think anyone south of north Mississippi and Alabama knows who you are so I/we are wondering what your thoughts are on this matter. I, as well as others, will/would respect your opinion only if we know what it is.

Terry Zeringue
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 08:36AM
Wow really marc...you are kidding right?
Well that's 2 new BoD members just thrashing the masses.
"Do what I want and say what I want to hear or I wont be talking."
What a crock.

JABBA


it MUST be the plastic
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 09:39AM
I simply wanted to understand why when I offered to help I was told no by you. I want to understand why you voted no so that maybe you could better understand me. I guess I felt like one shouldn't tell someone their help is not welcome unless they really know them.

After that you said you were not going to respond to this again... after a few days I had to take you at your word for that. Don't fault me for believing you and then say "well, I was out of pocket"... you said you weren't going to respond and you didn't. How was I supposed to know any better?

I see no reason for you and I to have any beef but we have to be given a chance to know each other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 10:01AM
No, not the masses just one individual....

this appears to go back to "gee, don't post running totals on elections" .... (there was brilliance in action - and then the cries of "foul" on valid emailed votes attempted to be turned into a "memphis phone-a-thon" attack)....yep, brilliant!

Why the flip would someone who receives PM's turn-around and post his view of (clearly) a personal matter without actually PICKING UP HIS PHONE AND SPEAKING TO THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL.... "mommy, he wouldn't talk to me over the internet I gotta call him out for that" - BRILLIANT!

In fact, this same person bragged on another thread something to the effect of "I always bring the issue to the top, I don't cower behind my posting-name, I stand up and put it to ya personally," etc. etc. etc. pick up a phone?

Well, have you spoken to D'Arby? FACT: NO! (gee, a bit of a shocker there huh? Not!)
Well, does he owe you an explanation? Fact: No! But I'll give you one - MINE!

What was the issue: Whether a certain individual should be given ADMINISTRATIVE Rights on this Forum.....
Well, if past behavior on said forum is an indicator, a NO vote certainly seemed reasonable....

IT IS NOT LIKE D'ARBY had the ONLY NO VOTE....there were, IN FACT, 3 and JimO (tiebreaker) graciously allowed the aforementioned "muckraker" to have the rights he requested....are we attacking the other 2 - NO....seems like spilled milk all over again!

DO WE NOW QUESTION JimO as to HIS reasoning? NO, or at least we shouldn't. It is not CRAZY to keep administrative matters, well administrative. He who yells loudest is usually not right at all (here's your case in point).

Want to get individual Board members to express their views openly? Yeah, this goes FAR to cause that.....Brilliant!

More substance over drivel would be a fine thing.....and folks wonder why some of us have REFUSED requests that we run and sit on the SN Board...

I truly hope you all on the Board can get your collective acts together....ALL sides....because there is really no place for this aimless attacking with half facts and loaded angles.

If I were a sponsor who came on this site to check as to the "family oriented outside activity I might sponsor" - I can assure you most would read threads like these - the ones with BASELESS personal attacks and likely walk away.

Let's not put the SN on a route to self-implosion.....working together makes the series what it is. This is in no way to state that openness of discussion is bad....I simply have serious problems with how THIS discussion has been presented and played out.

Pick up the phone, stop being a twit AND CALL AND SPEAK IN PERSON to the other Board member....don't call them out as if you were slighted without explanation....heck, you are swimming neck deep in your own explanation as to why!!!

We all talk about growth.........then let's ALL get out of the sandbox! Thanks, I'm off my soapbox now...back to your regularly scheduled whimpering scowls....

Peace, out....Griff
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 10:17AM
AMEN!!!!!
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 10:45AM
I'm sorry but I did address it EXACTLY the same with one of the other board members. I already knew the 3rd one's position on the matter so there was no need to repeat in a pm what I already knew. -BRILLIANT (I know).

You have the PM's in their entirety... not once did Darby say "please call me to discuss this matter." This IS the day of the internet and you know what, a PM is equal to a phone call for most of us. If he didn't like that means then he should have asked me to call him and I would have gladly done so. (Mr. Amen Sidebottom can attest to that... I will call if you request... right big guy?)

You (granted I won't take your word for it since you, I assume, don't speak for Darby) said something that would be of concern, "Why the flip would someone who receives PM's turn-around and post his view of (clearly) a personal matter". Well, I would have to wonder why someone would be voting, to represent the SN, from a "(clearly) personal" problem with someone. Again, you aren't Darby so I won't hold him to those words but that is the thing that concerns some of us.

Again, this was a here and now situation, this had nothing to do with any election debauchery or anything... not sure why you guys think everything is so personal. All he had to do was give me an answer as I am a voter and I should be entitled to one (I'd get one from my congressman if I emailed him). Since you didn't read, I'll say it again... I PM'd Will the exact same PM and I got a response back... I didn't agree with the response but you don't see me calling him out over it. I don't agree with it but I don't feel that it is out of the scope of a board member's opinion on the matter. Will had a very official stance on the matter that was NOT personal in any manner... I disagreed but I respected that decision.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
ww
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 10:48AM
I got a birdie on the train hole yesterday at Muni.

It felt awesome.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 10:53AM
Cool beans, WW! Will and I were going to play in Nashville Sunday after the Titans game but it was too wet. Went to Joe's Crab Shack instead.

Be cool.

rWc3523
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 11:42AM
Now you are just Spamming WW :p Let's try to stay on topic, this is the BoD forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 11:51AM
Guys this was a total nonissue at the BOD meeting. It was voted on and done. I actually left that meeting with a lot of my personal concerns alleviated. We had compromised on the Allan situation, we had discussed several needed issues, and had voted to get bids out on the 2011 champs. This situation came completely out of left field. Marc, Will, and I all were fine with how the vote went. You win some you lose some.

I hope people will be patient with both our new bod members. I don't think Marc was quite prepared for the intensity of critisism you recieve for a nonpaying position especially over a vote on the losing side of an issue. I've seen that Marc will be an excellent addition to the bod.

Josh
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 11:55AM
Hilltopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I've seen that Marc will be an excellent addition to the bod.
>
> Josh

Time will tell. That goes for everyone on the BOD.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 12:02PM
Whoa there nelly Griff, until Marc's post on September 22, 2009 01:15AM Mr. Darby's phone number had not been posted kinda like his email is blocked when you click on his name here on the site. Marc has had 11 posts. NO phone # given. Pick up the phone a call him PUHleeeeeeze. That was not an option until TODAY.
Seems to me that it was being kept under wraps (out of the publics eye) thru PMs until the terse response of "Im not responding.."
This is not how i imagined folks on the BOD would "work" with folks wishing to volunteer for the SN. What a shame.

"Do what I want and say what I want to hear or I wont be talking."
what a crock.

JABBA


it MUST be the plastic
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 12:12PM
TheZinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say a little bit of patience is the key. Marc
> voted his way for a reason, i would think his
> reason would be because he doesn't know Kevin
> personally nor professionally, only what he
> sees/reads on the forum (this is only a guess). I
> think if 3 of the BOD members had an issue with
> this, then the vote could of been on hold and the
> BOD members could of called or emailed or pm'd
> Kevin asking him what ALL he could bring to the
> table for a professional job like this (apart from
> his personal posts
). Since it was already voted
> on then we just need to have patience like Josh
> said. I know nobody wants to get too far backed
> up, but it will work out over time. Marc's
> user-name has only been in use since June I think,
> and he has only posted 10 times thus far, but I'm
> sure (well i hope) he reads what people on the
> forum has to say and hopefully he'll (like others)
> explain certain things he feels that needs
> explaining.



Griff, did they do that????? Jeeeee, NO they didn't.


Marc, i don't get your post at ALL. My last post i tried to give you the benefit of doubt. Why wouldn't you want someone to volunteer their services? What have YOU done to help the SN? Sure you have helped Memphis in a tremendous way, but if Kevin is willing to help out the
SN when why not let him? Is it because of the reason i stated in my last post? If not then what is it? What have YOU done to help the SN as a whole other than Memphis (which I love)? If you're going to vote no for a person to give his expertise, then please give the reason. It seems that you are beating around the bush. I'm not knocking you at all, but since you posted about the subject, I have to call you out for not answering any of the questions that have come to surface. Your first sentence is "Okay it looks like this won't be put to bed until I formally respond to this matter", but you NEVER responded to the matter of the subject at hand. If someone is willing to take his time to help out the BOD (by minimizing what y'all have to do on the forum), then why not support it? I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just wondering why you wouldn't let Kevin take on this responsibility. I don't think anyone south of north Mississippi and Alabama knows who you are so I/we are wondering what your thoughts are on this matter. I, as well as others, will/would respect your opinion only if we know what it is.

Terry Zeringue
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 12:23PM
One point here guys, the BOD voted 6-0 to allow Kevin to POSTS SCORES. The 3-3 vote had to do with the full admin privileges. This was not a vote to raise SN fees or shift 25 percent of the AM money to the SNPC!!

I can't see why Marc or any BOD members' decision in this is such a major issue. If it were for one of the reasons above, something that affected ALL SN PLAYERS, not one person, I'd be concerned. This is getting blown WAY out of proportion.

BTW, the BOD, including MARC, voted IN FAVOR of letting Kevin volunteer. Remember that.

here is is..... "5. Voted 6-0 to ask Brian Moon to allow Kevin Richards the ability to post results and update the schedule as well as look into web site upgrades."

just sayin'


rWc3523



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2009 01:13PM by Russ3523.
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 12:40PM
Don't look past the reason for and the topic of this post.

...The issue which is a BIG deal is that Marc refused to answer Kevin's question. It didn't have to be made into a big deal if Marc would have answered him.

Will did...no big deal there. Hilltopper stated his position before the vote...no big deal there. ...statement from Marc...I will not answer your question...BIG PROBLEM. ....as a representative of the SN you need to be ready to answer questions on how you vote.

Getting defensive and closing off communication shows that you weren't thinking with the best interest of the SN, but with your own personal agenda (ANOTHER BIG PROBLEM).

Will and Josh were able to answer...so what's the problem?
Re: Answering to your consituents.
September 22, 2009 12:52PM
THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD "PRICELESS"

and yes gilly you called me after i asked you to; and we accomplished nothing on the phone just as we did not on the forum.

JUST LET IT GO!!!! AND MOVE ON!!!! im just saying.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 15
Record Number of Users: 19 on January 14, 2013
Record Number of Guests: 244 on February 20, 2013