David's final hours

[Beej]

MsDa...

"Then BeeJ, why was it being discussed prior to the post by Drex?"

Without re-reading every post in this thread, the discussion started because an individual sought answers from more "knowledgeable" posters regarding questionable information he'd come across on a website pertaining to David's death. Half the posts in this thread came in a four-day span more than two years ago. That same individual revived this thread four months ago only to be ignored...that is, until a few weeks ago when a new poster pulled it from the ashes to state her own views. It's not a fascinating topic. I think most people understand that these threads generally attract two types of people: those looking for conspiracies to satisfy their curiosity and those who enjoy shooting them down.


"...is there a possibility that he did not overdose on his own, and possibly had help."

Certainly, there's the possibility. What there isn't is tangible evidence to support such a theory. Has anyone ever gone on record to authorities claiming that he/she witnessed or had evidence that David Ruffin was murdered? Drug addict or not, the man was still a celebrity. In this age, someone most certainly would've jumped at the chance to reopen the case by now, for notoriety if nothing else, if there were sufficient cause to question the findings in his death.



drex...

"...except Ms. Showers is quoted (published articles) she hadn't seen David Ruffin in a week, in one article and in another she is quoted she last saw him on Wednesday (2 days before his death.)..."

Well, the problem with focusing so much attention on news reports is that they're news reports. I'd be interested in what she told investigators and if there were any inconsistencies there egregious enough to cast doubt on her version of events. News reports are notoriously transmitted out of context far too often -- if not flat out wrong -- to be considered unimpeachable sources. Reporters can be very lazy, trusting unreliable sources or assuming things they shouldn't assume. So, the fact that something appeared in print does not necessarily make it true. The fact that one news story disagrees with the details described in two other news stories means even less. People knowingly or unknowingly give bad information all the time. Quite often, it gets reported as fact. I say this from experience.

That said, it's entirely possible that these statements are consistent with one another:

1. “The last time Showers saw Ruffin was a week before he died.”
2. “[Diane Showers] said she last saw him on Wednesday."
3. “Showers told police she last saw Ruffin at their West Philadelphia home on (Sunday) May 26th.”

Statements #1 and #3 appear to both be referencing the last time she saw him "at their home." Statement #2 could be referencing the last time she saw him, period...meaning she saw him out (away from home) in the interim. Then again, it's also very possible that statement #2 was just incorrectly reported. It's difficult to say with any certainty, but there's not enough concern in my mind to jump to any conclusion that she was somehow involved in a murder or cover-up...certainly not based on the appearance of conflicting news reports. It's what she told investigators that's important.


"...why was drugs the first quote she is noted for and not that his briefcase was found at an alleged crack house or their money was stolen? I am trying to understand."

What a newspaper decides to highlight in their coverage is an editorial decision. News outlets do not substitute for law enforcement. What she told authorities is what's relevant...not what information is leaked to the press or what content they choose to publish. So, that the "first quote she is noted for" is regarding David's drug use has no bearing on her truthfulness or her character. Apparently, investigators did not see sufficient inconsistencies in the recorded statements to charge anyone with homicide, conspiracy or grand larceny. That's what matters.


"Your raise a valid point about the newspaper articles, if each of these articles ... misquoted everyone everytime during their interviews, then the entire case should be reviewed for accuracy sake alone. Yes?"

No. Again, newspapers getting things wrong has no bearing on the thoroughness of an investigation. What's important is what investigators learned from their interviews and from the medical findings. There was nothing sufficiently unusual about either for law enforcement officials to launch a formal investigation aimed at bringing an indictment against any of the aforementioned participants in connection with David Ruffin's death.

Simply put, he was a famous drug addict who overdosed. If he had a large sum of money on him, it was likely stolen. When a person engages in illicit activities with seedy people, bad things can happen. No matter how you shake it, no one was responsible for David's death but David.


"Also, I appreciate all boards allowing my post. I expect no public reply but will discuss anything I am ask. I do not want to participate in vile communications."

Well, then you've come to the right place. There are boards out there where "vile communications" are the norm and there are administrators out there who only allow free thought so long as it agrees with their lunatic beliefs. On those boards, disagreement results in banishment...something else I can say from experience.

[drex]

"Simply put, he was a famous drug addict who overdosed. If he had a large sum of money on him, it was likely stolen. When a person engages in illicit activities with seedy people, bad things can happen. No matter how you shake it, no one was responsible for David's death but David."

Beej,
Thank you for your candid reply. Many of your comments make great sense, however, if I may, I respectfully disagree on a few issues.
It is of great importance, for example, answers are revealed such as where the man who drove the limousine and David Ruffin to the alleged crackhouse and hospital, to learn of his whereabouts from 2:55 a.m. until 4 a.m. when he returned the limousine. It is less than 5 miles from the UOP ER to the limo service.

It is of the upmost importance to reveal exactly when and where Ruffin's, Edwards and Kendricks money was returned to Ruffin.

The ME is quoted, "adverse reaction to cocaine and OTHER DRUGS." Shouldn't it had been revealed what the other "drugs" are. A drug present, that Ruffin had never been known to use, wouldn't that have been a motive for investigators to dig deeper?

Once it was disclosed to investigators on Monday morning, by the limo driver, that he had left behind the briefcase when he loaded Ruffin into the vehicle, wasn't it importnt whether or not the limo driver also alerted Mr. Murrell when the limo driver returned the limo at 4 a.m. And, if so, why wasn't the briefcase retrieved immediately instead of hours later after receiving a telephone call from Eddie Kendrick.

In the Monday, June 3, 1991 issue of The Philadelphia Daily News, page 34 there is a photograph with the caption under the photo which reads,
"Linster "Butch" Murrell and Ruffin's crack-house limo."
The next day, Tuesday, June 4, 1991 in the Philadelphia Daily News, page 3, shows a correction box with the same but smaller photograph, the correct reads,
"...The limousine pictured here was not used by singer David Ruffin on the eveing before his death, according to Murrell." It is evident Mr. Murrell caught this inconsistency, if all his other quotes were incorrect, why weren't they corrected.

A few spend great energy "deflecting the point" I am so open to sincere dialog. [e-mail]

[Beej]

"It is of great importance, for example, answers are revealed such as where the man who drove the limousine and David Ruffin to the alleged crackhouse and hospital, to learn of his whereabouts from 2:55 a.m. until 4 a.m. when he returned the limousine. It is less than 5 miles from the UOP ER to the limo service."

"It is of the upmost importance to reveal exactly when and where Ruffin's, Edwards and Kendricks money was returned to Ruffin."

"The ME is quoted, 'adverse reaction to cocaine and OTHER DRUGS.' Shouldn't it had been revealed what the other 'drugs' are. A drug present, that Ruffin had never been known to use, wouldn't that have been a motive for investigators to dig deeper?""

These are all valid questions...for investigators...and it's likely that they do have answers to all of them. The general public, however, does not have an inherent right to the information. As fans, it's perfectly normal for us to be curious, but the lack of details presented in news stories should in no way cause us to infer that vital questions were never asked or not sufficiently answered during the course of the police investigation. I'm satisfied that they did a thorough job. I'm also satisfied that there were quite a few details surrounding David Ruffin's death which the police did not feel necessary to share with the general public.

Newspapers and magazine articles can only tell you so much, which is why it's problematic to place so much emphasis on the information reported. Only those who investigated the incident in an official capacity are capable of giving you the answers you seek.

[MsDa]

beej said:

MsDa...

"Then BeeJ, why was it being discussed prior to the post by Drex?"

Without re-reading every post in this thread, the discussion started because an individual sought answers from more "knowledgeable" posters regarding questionable information he'd come across on a website pertaining to David's death. Half the posts in this thread came in a four-day span more than two years ago. That same individual revived this thread four months ago only to be ignored...that is, until a few weeks ago when a new poster pulled it from the ashes to state her own views. It's not a fascinating topic. I think most people understand that these threads generally attract two types of people: those looking for conspiracies to satisfy their curiosity and those who enjoy shooting them down.

The fact remains that someone was still interested enough to ask a question. So was I.


"...is there a possibility that he did not overdose on his own, and possibly had help."

Certainly, there's the possibility. What there isn't is tangible evidence to support such a theory. Has anyone ever gone on record to authorities claiming that he/she witnessed or had evidence that David Ruffin was murdered?

Has there been anyone that knew, and was afraid to go to the authorities? There is more to this than meets the eye BeeJ. I do thank you for giving your feelings. But just like a host of other people, your feelings, are just your feelings. That is why the inconsistencies should be answered.



Drug addict or not, the man was still a celebrity. In this age, someone most certainly would've jumped at the chance to reopen the case by now, for notoriety if nothing else, if there were sufficient cause to question the findings in his death.



drex...

"...except Ms. Showers is quoted (published articles) she hadn't seen David Ruffin in a week, in one article and in another she is quoted she last saw him on Wednesday (2 days before his death.)..."

Well, the problem with focusing so much attention on news reports is that they're news reports. I'd be interested in what she told investigators and if there were any inconsistencies there egregious enough to cast doubt on her version of events. News reports are notoriously transmitted out of context far too often -- if not flat out wrong -- to be considered unimpeachable sources. Reporters can be very lazy, trusting unreliable sources or assuming things they shouldn't assume. So, the fact that something appeared in print does not necessarily make it true. The fact that one news story disagrees with the details described in two other news stories means even less. People knowingly or unknowingly give bad information all the time. Quite often, it gets reported as fact. I say this from experience.

That said, it's entirely possible that these statements are consistent with one another:

1. “The last time Showers saw Ruffin was a week before he died.”
2. “[Diane Showers] said she last saw him on Wednesday."
3. “Showers told police she last saw Ruffin at their West Philadelphia home on (Sunday) May 26th.”

Statements #1 and #3 appear to both be referencing the last time she saw him "at their home." Statement #2 could be referencing the last time she saw him, period...meaning she saw him out (away from home) in the interim. Then again, it's also very possible that statement #2 was just incorrectly reported. It's difficult to say with any certainty, but there's not enough concern in my mind to jump to any conclusion that she was somehow involved in a murder or cover-up...certainly not based on the appearance of conflicting news reports. It's what she told investigators that's important.


"...why was drugs the first quote she is noted for and not that his briefcase was found at an alleged crack house or their money was stolen? I am trying to understand."

What a newspaper decides to highlight in their coverage is an editorial decision. News outlets do not substitute for law enforcement. What she told authorities is what's relevant...not what information is leaked to the press or what content they choose to publish. So, that the "first quote she is noted for" is regarding David's drug use has no bearing on her truthfulness or her character. Apparently, investigators did not see sufficient inconsistencies in the recorded statements to charge anyone with homicide, conspiracy or grand larceny. That's what matters.


"Your raise a valid point about the newspaper articles, if each of these articles ... misquoted everyone everytime during their interviews, then the entire case should be reviewed for accuracy sake alone. Yes?"

No. Again, newspapers getting things wrong has no bearing on the thoroughness of an investigation. What's important is what investigators learned from their interviews and from the medical findings. There was nothing sufficiently unusual about either for law enforcement officials to launch a formal investigation aimed at bringing an indictment against any of the aforementioned participants in connection with David Ruffin's death.

Simply put, he was a famous drug addict who overdosed. If he had a large sum of money on him, it was likely stolen. When a person engages in illicit activities with seedy people, bad things can happen. No matter how you shake it, no one was responsible for David's death but David.


"Also, I appreciate all boards allowing my post. I expect no public reply but will discuss anything I am ask. I do not want to participate in vile communications."

Well, then you've come to the right place. There are boards out there where "vile communications" are the norm and there are administrators out there who only allow free thought so long as it agrees with their lunatic beliefs. On those boards, disagreement results in banishment...something else I can say from experience.

[MsDa]

Sorry BeeJ, I posted this in red, it did not work. I answered you under you post.

msda said:

beej said:

MsDa...

"Then BeeJ, why was it being discussed prior to the post by Drex?"

Without re-reading every post in this thread, the discussion started because an individual sought answers from more "knowledgeable" posters regarding questionable information he'd come across on a website pertaining to David's death. Half the posts in this thread came in a four-day span more than two years ago. That same individual revived this thread four months ago only to be ignored...that is, until a few weeks ago when a new poster pulled it from the ashes to state her own views. It's not a fascinating topic. I think most people understand that these threads generally attract two types of people: those looking for conspiracies to satisfy their curiosity and those who enjoy shooting them down.

The fact remains that someone was still interested enough to ask a question. So was I.


"...is there a possibility that he did not overdose on his own, and possibly had help."

Certainly, there's the possibility. What there isn't is tangible evidence to support such a theory. Has anyone ever gone on record to authorities claiming that he/she witnessed or had evidence that David Ruffin was murdered?

Has there been anyone that knew, and was afraid to go to the authorities? There is more to this than meets the eye BeeJ. I do thank you for giving your feelings. But just like a host of other people, your feelings, are just your feelings. That is why the inconsistencies should be answered.



Drug addict or not, the man was still a celebrity. In this age, someone most certainly would've jumped at the chance to reopen the case by now, for notoriety if nothing else, if there were sufficient cause to question the findings in his death.



drex...

"...except Ms. Showers is quoted (published articles) she hadn't seen David Ruffin in a week, in one article and in another she is quoted she last saw him on Wednesday (2 days before his death.)..."

Well, the problem with focusing so much attention on news reports is that they're news reports. I'd be interested in what she told investigators and if there were any inconsistencies there egregious enough to cast doubt on her version of events. News reports are notoriously transmitted out of context far too often -- if not flat out wrong -- to be considered unimpeachable sources. Reporters can be very lazy, trusting unreliable sources or assuming things they shouldn't assume. So, the fact that something appeared in print does not necessarily make it true. The fact that one news story disagrees with the details described in two other news stories means even less. People knowingly or unknowingly give bad information all the time. Quite often, it gets reported as fact. I say this from experience.

That said, it's entirely possible that these statements are consistent with one another:

1. “The last time Showers saw Ruffin was a week before he died.”
2. “[Diane Showers] said she last saw him on Wednesday."
3. “Showers told police she last saw Ruffin at their West Philadelphia home on (Sunday) May 26th.”

Statements #1 and #3 appear to both be referencing the last time she saw him "at their home." Statement #2 could be referencing the last time she saw him, period...meaning she saw him out (away from home) in the interim. Then again, it's also very possible that statement #2 was just incorrectly reported. It's difficult to say with any certainty, but there's not enough concern in my mind to jump to any conclusion that she was somehow involved in a murder or cover-up...certainly not based on the appearance of conflicting news reports. It's what she told investigators that's important.


"...why was drugs the first quote she is noted for and not that his briefcase was found at an alleged crack house or their money was stolen? I am trying to understand."

What a newspaper decides to highlight in their coverage is an editorial decision. News outlets do not substitute for law enforcement. What she told authorities is what's relevant...not what information is leaked to the press or what content they choose to publish. So, that the "first quote she is noted for" is regarding David's drug use has no bearing on her truthfulness or her character. Apparently, investigators did not see sufficient inconsistencies in the recorded statements to charge anyone with homicide, conspiracy or grand larceny. That's what matters.


"Your raise a valid point about the newspaper articles, if each of these articles ... misquoted everyone everytime during their interviews, then the entire case should be reviewed for accuracy sake alone. Yes?"

No. Again, newspapers getting things wrong has no bearing on the thoroughness of an investigation. What's important is what investigators learned from their interviews and from the medical findings. There was nothing sufficiently unusual about either for law enforcement officials to launch a formal investigation aimed at bringing an indictment against any of the aforementioned participants in connection with David Ruffin's death.

Simply put, he was a famous drug addict who overdosed. If he had a large sum of money on him, it was likely stolen. When a person engages in illicit activities with seedy people, bad things can happen. No matter how you shake it, no one was responsible for David's death but David.


"Also, I appreciate all boards allowing my post. I expect no public reply but will discuss anything I am ask. I do not want to participate in vile communications."

Well, then you've come to the right place. There are boards out there where "vile communications" are the norm and there are administrators out there who only allow free thought so long as it agrees with their lunatic beliefs. On those boards, disagreement results in banishment...something else I can say from experience.

[Tasha]

man drex u making me think lol but I agree I also think it was murder....damn shame....thanks for postin such great info on David.[/color][/size]

[drex]

"These are all valid questions...for investigators...and it's likely that they do have answers to all of them. The general public, however, does not have an inherent right to the information. As fans, it's perfectly normal for us to be curious, but the lack of details presented in news stories should in no way cause us to infer that vital questions were never asked or not sufficiently answered during the course of the police investigation. I'm satisfied that they did a thorough job. I'm also satisfied that there were quite a few details surrounding David Ruffin's death which the police did not feel necessary to share with the general public.

Newspapers and magazine articles can only tell you so much, which is why it's problematic to place so much emphasis on the information reported. Only those who investigated the incident in an official capacity are capable of giving you the answers you seek. "

Thanks for the reply, Beej. However, I am not satisfied. I'll continue my journey to get to the truth of these questions:
1. When did Murrell return David Ruffin's money?
2. Who sold David 10 vials of crack cocaine?
3. When did Murrell last see Ruffin Friday afternoon or Friday night?
4. When did Showers last see David, Sunday, Wednesday or the day he died?
5. Why did Brown leave the ER?
6. Did Brown tell Murrell he left behind the briefcase when he returned the limo?
7. Why did Showers say on Entertainment Tonight "she hoped David was in a hotel jacuzzi since he had that much money" if she "never saw the money"?
8. Did Showers know Ruffin was in a hotel with another woman before she was interviewed for Entertainment Tonight?
9. Why did Ruffin allegedly take $200 out of his briefcase at Nowell's?
10. Why did Nowell allegedly give the $200 to Brown.
11. Did Nowell help Brown load David into the limo?
12. Did Nowell have knowledge Brown had left behind the breifcase?
13. How did Murrell's employee able to go inside the alleged crack house on Saturday to retrieve the briefcase? Was Nowell there to let the employee in?
14. If Brown told Murrell he left behind the briefcase at 4 a.m., when he returned the limo to Murrell, why did Murrell wait until hours later and after Eddie Kendrick called to send an employee to retrieve it?
15. If Brown failed to alert Murrell, when Brown's account of what to the briefcase and the fact he did not return the limo until an hour after driving David to the ER, did Murrell contact police and alert them Brown failed to mention these two facts?..................

[MsDa]

Also, why was a non employee driving a company limo , without a CDL license?

Modify

{{{{{{{{These post were taken from two different publications. Note there is a line between the two post. I must thank A Reed for questioning where I got the information...}}}}}}}}




Pennsylvania Occupational Outlook Handbook
Search L&I Home Printable Version Text-Only Full-Screen Previous Next

2002 PA Occupational Outlook Handbook
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
OES CODES: 97114

Download a printer friendly version (PDF).

Significant Points

Opportunities should be best for good drivers who are willing to work flexible schedules.
A special license is required.
About 1 in 3 were self-employed.
Nature of the Work
-------------------------------------------------------------

DEPENDS ON THE LOCALE AS TO THE REQUIRMENTS. NOTE*
Persons interested in driving a taxicab or a limousine first must have a regular automobile driver’s license. Usually, applicants then must acquire a (taxi driver or chauffeur’s license, commonly called a “hack”)license ,(others require a Commercial Driver’s License with a passenger endorsement. While States set licensing requirements, local regulatory bodies usually set other terms and conditions. These often include requirements for training, which can vary greatly. Some localities require new drivers to enroll in training programs consisting of up to 80 hours of classroom instruction before they are allowed to work. To qualify through either an exam or a training program, applicants must know local geography, motor vehicle laws, safe driving practices, and relevant regulations and display some aptitude for customer service. Some localities require an English proficiency test, usually in the form of listening comprehension; applicants who do not pass the English exam must take an English course in addition to any formal driving programs. Some classroom instruction includes route management, mapreading, and service for passengers with disabilities. Many taxicab or limousine companies sponsor applicants, giving them a temporary permit that allows them to drive before they have finished the training program and passed the test. Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, have discontinued this practice and now require driver applicants to complete the licensing process before operating a taxi or limousine.

[MissTara]

msda said:

Also, why was a non employee driving a company limo , without a CDL license?

HA~ Should have been a class A license as big as it was

[MsDa]

Please note prior post has been amended so as to clarify.

misstara said:

msda said:

Also, why was a non employee driving a company limo , without a CDL license?

HA~ Should have been a class A license as big as it was

[MsDa]

NOTE* {{{{{{{{These post were taken from two different publications. Note there is a line between the two post. I must thank A Reed for questioning where I got the information, and the validity of it...}}}}}}}}

msda said:

Also, why was a non employee driving a company limo , without a CDL license?






Pennsylvania Occupational Outlook Handbook
Search L&I Home Printable Version Text-Only Full-Screen Previous Next

2002 PA Occupational Outlook Handbook
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
OES CODES: 97114

Download a printer friendly version (PDF).

Significant Points

Opportunities should be best for good drivers who are willing to work flexible schedules.
A special license is required.
About 1 in 3 were self-employed.
Nature of the Work
-------------------------------------------------------------

DEPENDS ON THE LOCALE AS TO THE REQUIRMENTS. NOTE*
Persons interested in driving a taxicab or a limousine first must have a regular automobile driver’s license. Usually, applicants then must acquire a (taxi driver or chauffeur’s license, commonly called a “hack”)license ,(others require a Commercial Driver’s License with a passenger endorsement. While States set licensing requirements, local regulatory bodies usually set other terms and conditions. These often include requirements for training, which can vary greatly. Some localities require new drivers to enroll in training programs consisting of up to 80 hours of classroom instruction before they are allowed to work. To qualify through either an exam or a training program, applicants must know local geography, motor vehicle laws, safe driving practices, and relevant regulations and display some aptitude for customer service. Some localities require an English proficiency test, usually in the form of listening comprehension; applicants who do not pass the English exam must take an English course in addition to any formal driving programs. Some classroom instruction includes route management, mapreading, and service for passengers with disabilities. Many taxicab or limousine companies sponsor applicants, giving them a temporary permit that allows them to drive before they have finished the training program and passed the test. Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, have discontinued this practice and now require driver applicants to complete the licensing process before operating a taxi or limousine.

[MsDa]

Boxingagogo and kewlikethat, let it be clearly understood that I tried to open an account on this board under the moniker of Jody and there was a Jody already. Now, let it also be clearly understood that you are doing the same thing ER and Brandy that you accuse me of doing, not posting under your Palace names. For the people on this board, we posted here because there was a current chat going on about David and his death. So, we posted. I believe that it is an open forum and membership is welcomed, so we did join.

For Boxingagogo and kewlikethat, I will not bring your vile post and temperament to this board! It is not my intent to argue with you here. You can just take your mess back to the Palace. The only thing I care about at all is how David died.

By the way, I have only been ask to leave one board, and gosh don't we all know who caused that mess. The other one was a set up, and I have all the E-mails to prove it.

[kewlikethat]

By the way, I have only been ask to leave one board, and gosh don't we all know who caused that mess. The other one was a set up, and I have all the E-mails to prove it.

By the way,That sounds like 2 boards to me!
For the people on this board, we posted here because there was a current chat going on about David and his death. So, we posted. I believe that it is an open forum and membership is welcomed, so we did join.

Is that so? There is nothing wrong with using a new screen name. But to act like you do not know the very person you're here to support.
I have been waiting for days now to see the replies to this person Drex. It seems that Drex has a list of valid questions
Things that make you go ummm.
For Boxingagogo and kewlikethat, I will not bring your vile post and temperament to this board! It is not my intent to argue with you here. You can just take your mess back to the Palace. The only thing I care about at all is how David died.
Oh I see! Then please explain why you have used the name of a person you don't even know on this board? Not once but twice you have posted it. Somehow It seems delibriate don't you think?
Doesn't quite fit the victim image you're trying to project.

[MsDa]

You people have been doing this to me for YEARS. Just thought I would let you know how it feels. By the way, I do know who she is. Enough said...

kewlikethat said:

By the way, I have only been ask to leave one board, and gosh don't we all know who caused that mess. The other one was a set up, and I have all the E-mails to prove it.

By the way,That sounds like 2 boards to me!
For the people on this board, we posted here because there was a current chat going on about David and his death. So, we posted. I believe that it is an open forum and membership is welcomed, so we did join.

Is that so? There is nothing wrong with using a new screen name. But to act like you do not know the very person you're here to support.
I have been waiting for days now to see the replies to this person Drex. It seems that Drex has a list of valid questions
Things that make you go ummm.
For Boxingagogo and kewlikethat, I will not bring your vile post and temperament to this board! It is not my intent to argue with you here. You can just take your mess back to the Palace. The only thing I care about at all is how David died.
Oh I see! Then please explain why you have used the name of a person you don't even know on this board? Not once but twice you have posted it. Somehow It seems delibriate don't you think?
Doesn't quite fit the victim image you're trying to project.

[Beej]

"...and soon you will be exposed for all the world to see."

Hopefully, not here.

I think I can speak for the vast majority when I say we don't care. Please show some consideration to the regulars and take your little squabble elsewhere.

At the very least, have the decency to do your sniping through PM.

Thank you.

~B