Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

The original post was about ”juicy details” hence blatant sexual innuendos that could further cause a provider issues

The original post was about ”juicy details” hence blatant sexual innuendos that could further cause a provider issues

Regarding ’juicy details’. There’s a select number of Sr’s on my board that I take them at their word completely and they accept mine. If it’s good we say so, if not good we say that too, and only that. Specifics are handled by pm’s and email and not published openly. No sense in titillatating the lurkers who never contribute and local leo with details blendr.

That’s laughable

I’m a damm yankee btw :)[/QUOTE]No intrusion at all, though you make way too much sense for some of the folks here — you damn yankees.

[QUOTE=Gansett]Regarding ’juicy details’. There’s a select number of Sr’s on my board that I take them at their word completely and they accept mine. If it’s good we say so, if not good we say that too, and only that. Specifics are handled by pm’s and email and not published openly. No sense in titillatating the lurkers who never contribute and local leo with details.

The debate over ”juicy details” will ALWAYS continue. The way you guys handle it is very good. Problem down here is that there are so many egos and bullshit that your approach wouldn’t work here. There’s too much of a sense of entitlement that some members get. based only on their number of posts. Men with little boy mentalities.

The other problem is that some think that if we don’t disclose details here. well. Fortsätt läsa The original post was about ”juicy details” hence blatant sexual innuendos that could further cause a provider issues