APOLOGY ?

[HAY MAKER]

My post, asking a simple question sure got blown up,gets me to wondering,should I apologize for asking the question,some would say no,when it comes to children back ground checks are mandatory,why get on the defensive,others would say ,it was an attack on the mans character,you decide,can we be too safe when it comes to children ?would you send your children on a day trip to a remote location with someone that has not had their back ground checked ?.............good luck

[Maple Leaf Angus]

haymaker, why don't you just shut up and stick this thing where it belongs? You only keep making yourself look worse with your pathetic posts which are nothing but a poor attempt at disguising what you are.


You repeatedly attack some male on this forum and then when you get your ass kicked in for it, you run and hide behind the skirts of the women on here.
Would this be why you are constantly pouring on the charm for the ladies? To get their approval and protection?

A gentleman? Well, I think that is up for discussion.

[HAY MAKER]

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Haymaker,

I think you should just drop it no kind of damage control is going to help you now.

[Maple Leaf Angus]

So what you are saying is that you cannot independently exercise a good sense of good judgment . You need to have someone tell you what is right and wrong.

I think that supports what I am saying about you. And that comes from your own words, so it must be truthful, right?

Hay Maker, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

[HAY MAKER]

I guess I am not makin this clear enough for some of you folks that are bored today,"would you send your kids on a day trip into a remote location with some one that has not under gone a back ground check Period,that's what this is all about,you call that "damage control",I call it common sense,no one should be allowed to supervise children without a back ground check...............good luck

[Manitoba_Rancher]

I can see now why you dont have a wife or kids haymaker.

[HAY MAKER]

[Mrs.Greg]

Anyone other then Haymaker that votes "no" needs to go back,check all thier own posts and see if anybody can read SOMETHING ill in thier posts,if using a twisted way of thinking.Thats exactly what Haymaker did to NR. Oh and also go read Haymakers posts to Tam and see if those aren't considered vulgar.Not going to argue with you today Haymaker,you made yourself plain and clear,in your accidental post to Lilly in coffee shop,what you think of the Canadians on here.

[HAY MAKER]

[memanpa]

i try to stay out of this type of disagreement, but according to the poll (one originated by haymaker) it is overwhelming obvious an apoligy is in order, having it happen is something else!

it is also obvious there are some people that have issues that need to be addressed regarding the insecurities they have
there are several levels of background checks, local, county state, federal.as well as different levels within each agency not all of them infallable too many times there are mistakes and things fall thru the cracks.
a background check is only as good as the agency doing the check, OR as good as the person getting the check is at hiding his/her past. those that feel safe seeing a background check result of a person can and often do fall into a false sense of security
off my soapbox
JMHO

[katrina]

After putting my foot in my mouth countless times. I have come to the conclusion that it is much easier to apolizige and put the ball back in there court sorta speak... What is the saying? It takes a big man to apolize and bigger one to except...JMHO