Alright this the deal .. I not beefing with @Phil Banks anymore BUT When I accused him of being a biter it WAS based on material I felt was EVIDENCE ..In this case IT was his own words .. Im sure everyone remembers the skit .. and this was old news evidently .. but from my research in those forum threads Phils defense was he doesnt watch URL and some individuals commented saying that its a played bar .. TBH i dont believe that and from the sensitive reactions he gets from ppl calling him a biter steers me in the direction that he did bite .. BUT thats over with now he denies it and Im not wasting my time on the net arguing with someone about that level of shit ,, so i squashed that shit .. MY POINT? an accusation should be thoroughly investigated before resulting in a ban .. the decision also should be made as a whole .. and if its one the staff members being accused he cannot count as a vote in the matter to prevent biased towards the accused Any thoughts towards this method? @RULE @Jason @2FUEL @NOBLE

Alright this the deal .. I not beefing with @Phil Banks anymore BUT When I accused him of being a biter it WAS based on material I felt was EVIDENCE ..In this case IT was his own words .. Im sure everyone remembers the skit .. and this was old news evidently .. but from my research in those forum threads Phils defense was he doesnt watch URL and some individuals commented saying that its a played bar .. TBH i dont believe that and from the sensitive reactions he gets from ppl calling him a biter steers me in the direction that he did bite .. BUT thats over with now he denies it and Im not wasting my time on the net arguing with someone about that level of shit ,, so i squashed that shit .. MY POINT? an accusation should be thoroughly investigated before resulting in a ban .. the decision also should be made as a whole .. and if its one the staff members being accused he cannot count as a vote in the matter to prevent biased towards the accused Any thoughts towards this method? @RULE @Jason @2FUEL @NOBLE