Originally Posted by
hoover
I agree the language should be codified but maybe this language wasn't correct and that's why 17 -10 NO .
Or maybe they did a bad job of educating the BOD.
sure would be nice if we got more than " what's being said on FB is false".
So we already had language that worked so then we wanted to change it. When we did it created a hole for SWA to try and exploit. Would they? I trust swapull very little and SWA less. Why the change and why was it voted down. Questions swapullies don’t want to answer for some reason. They just say it was fine and RM wanted clicks. That was a stupid comment. I’m no RM fan but if he can read it a certain way so can SWA.