Keith,

Selective deleting of posts does not constitute a ban. If it did, Vic would have already been banned, as I know of least one of his posts that was deleted. I've been a participant in this forum since its inception in March of 1998, and I know of no one who has been banned from posting here, so your statement that "Various others are routinely banned for lesser transgressions..." is false.

You were asking Archie why Vic wasn't banned from the board. The point was, Greg is the only person anyone could ask that question, the forum is his.

You can deal with whomever you wish. There is an advantage to dealing with club members, because as club members, we are subject to a code of ethics. When someone's dealings breach that code, they get kicked out of the club. When local clubs were still chapters of the , local members were expected to accept the same code of ethics as members of the . Vic didn't, and he was kicked out of (banned) from a local organization.

I find it twisted that you'd look forward to being screwed by Vic. I find it twisted that you'd take a chance on dealing with someone who has had repeated public testimony to bad dealings, even by some who, like you, ignored the warnings by others who have been wronged. What I find particularly twisted are your statements regarding not personally knowing those who have been wronged. Thats where the code of ethics by being a member of the club comes into play the most. There is a level of trust involved when a club member makes public statements about a bad deal with someone. Multiple club members have had bad deals with this person, yet you chose to ignore them to deal with someone else that you don't know personally. ....then you issue public praise about that person. That does serve to undo the efforts of the people who have been wronged. You don't have to personally know someone who has been hurt by someone else to avoid the perpetrator, especially when those hurt are members of a club who are bound by a code of ethics.

Bob