gee, i'm not sure where you came up with that brilliant deduction. but, pretty safe to say it had to come from a major boardroom admins. meeting.
but, be that as it may, i'm fairly cogniscent of the fact i am in ihub jail, and am certainly not feigning being here. however, i am extremely perplexed [not really] as to why you/ihub cant seem
to address the problem which allegedly landed me here. i quoted several references in my previous posting, of course all went ignored by you, or anyone else. and, not surprisingly.
seems when ihub is incorrect and/or unable to answer to something that they erroneously implemented, read: my alleged VOP, they use the silent treatment/evasion method.
i mean, if thats the way it is, thats fine. just put it out there on the table. say, " ABIGHAMMER , we fouled up, and made the reference you cited open to interpretation, and we dont know how else to handle it, but to put you in jail. "
that would at least be a tad more palatable than the current method, which as i mentioned is one of silence and evasion.
i guess i would have to simply stand pat and say, ok, show me how, where, i specifically violated your vague, and ambiguous VOP ruling. if not, excercise the better judgement here, and release me promptly.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
