Just one more thought or two:If your lawyer ran up a hundred large without your consent, wouldn't you ban him AT LEAST?
And second, if you had a hundred large payable, and you wanted to run another snookerthon, wouldn't you allow people to think the payable had been incurred without your knowledge? And if some uninformed or malevolent, or both, poster, say Arator, posted that your lawyer was a scoundrel who had hoodwinked you for his own personal aims, mightn't you just let it be? Gosh, it could even improve the fundraising. Imagine that!
Have I been played? Very possibly. My apologies to Clarity and Clinton's a Liar for my presumption about the whole Esky suit matter. Obviously, none of us outside of the parties directly involved have all the facts. It was wrong of me to draw hasty conclusions based on scant and possibly one-sided information.
It happens, more often than not with the sub-human antis who're the most ill-informed people on the planet.
Apology accepted, Arator. With a caveat, however. We are all fleeting on this planet. What you do with your time here is between you and your Maker.
The caveat: stop being so self-absorbed and make an effort to think beyond your pride. This website is what it is. No one controls what happens here. Not you, not the moderators, no one. The content, in its voluminous nature, is controlled by the people who post here. If they stop posting, this website dies. If they stop contributing, this website dies. It's something more profound than you or me or Jim Robinson or the moderators. None of us, separately, can begin to replace the heart and soul of this website: the participants.
If you'll stop your I, me, mine bandwagon, not only will I forgive you (which means nothing in the big picture) but you'll never again be threatened by banishment.
May God bless you and keep you.
Regards.