Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone
I suggest you actually read before you
The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.
Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.
I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.
Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.
I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.
It is noted that he was called for active duty. Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if the same scenerio repeats itself, at least someone will know that it is possible he was called again to duty.
If we keep picking and choosing who should stay on a history list, it makes the entire process invalid. I admit that one name was removed because to mark a personal notation of its kind would be cruel. But if someone falters and is put on the probation list, they should be added to the history list once removed. Again, these are only my opinions.
I'm one who advocated for including a historical record of past offenders; however, I will say that in the instance of Chi Bam who was called away on a deployment, I know there are US Federal laws that affords certain protective measures for service members from financial institutions, bill collectors, etc, that arise as a result of being deployed--The US Soldier Sailor Act to be specific. While I recognize it can be problematic qualifying which historical records are kept and which aren't, I'd say playing devil's advocate, if it's good for the entire country... perhaps it's something we as a community ought to consider as well. :shrug:
I don't have a problem with him not paying if he was redeployed, but my question is, when you are redeployed, is it a surprise? Do you have only 24 hours notice?
Did he let people know? This thread is too convoluted for me to find it.
... odds are he had longer then 24hrs... these are extended deployments... which means everything gets taken care of prior to deploying... or i guess in this case not~