Ah! Yes, I did inadvertently leave out the “not” in my original statement, yak is correct in his analysis. I’ll go back and correct that omission and notate it.

As far as the violation of the TOU, Jim B has often happily offered commentary as to what he considers violations of the TOU by those with whom he disagrees and perhaps he had not updated his understanding to include Tyler/Paul/Tom’s newest provision.

The sentence he quoted was authored by me and as far as I know (nor apparently any one else) has no connection to any words of Calley. My failure to include the “not” changed the intended meaning of my sentence and gave Jim B. his opportunity to understand it as written, rather than as my position was intended to be presented.

Rather than add words inside a quote box giving the appearance that the words where actually “Calley’s” (and it is clear that is exactly what occurred by Tom and david) he could have quoted my mis-speak and then commented outside and separate of the quoted material.

As to the origin of that provision of the TOU perhaps layback will elect to provide some of the background on the impetuous for its development and implementation, as if I recall correctly he was at least in part involved and perhaps even received an infraction related to those original circumstances.