| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | |  Of course! | | | | Pete |
|
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | In November the screeners have decided and the AL without rating details has been voted and screened as correct. Now the same user contributes the wrong rating details again! There's even a part in his contribution notes that is not correct  | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
In November the screeners have decided and the AL without rating details has been voted and screened as correct. Now the same user contributes the wrong rating details again! There's even a part in his contribution notes that is not correct Agreed. Very childish. |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Another chapter to the childish behaviour of this user by saying in the notes that it's our personal preference and his contrinution is by the rules. And asking the screeners to ignore the NO-votes or else he doesn't have it his own way  Very sad! | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 334 |
| |
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | And around and around we go! The screeners have now overruled themselves. When they decided on this november 26th the decision was that no rating details were applicable. Now 3 1/2 weeks later, all of a sudden they are applicable (despite 2 NO-votes, 1 YES-vote with no comment). Makes you wonder if they actually read the (previous) contribution-notes.  |
|