January 25, 2013
All posts related to the Christopher Revak case have been deleted because of legal concerns. Some users posted information that went beyond the Rules of the Forum, and that's why they were deleted.
After deeply researching the Revak case, FindJodi.com believes there is no legitimate connection to the two cases. We consider this lead [u]closed[/u].
[url=http://www.eclassifiedsnetwork.com/content.aspx?Module=ContentItem&ID=142235&MemberID=1191]Here is a recent article where Jodi's case is mentioned [/url]
Remember to read the Rules of the Forum before posting your opinions and theories, because if they are in violation to the rules, we're forced to delete them.
Thanks for your cooperation.
since the archived articles that lead the users to make the posts were also removed--amongst other things--it is hardly fair to blame it on "some users". i'm out of here myself. there is nothing i can help you with anyway. good luck with the project.
January 25, 2013
This one is for :( (since you never post a name):
I'm not blaming users. While the posts were inaccurate, there was information in the articles that was attributed, but wasn't relevant to Jodi's case. As a legal issue, it is in this site's best interest to eliminate conflicting information when it is NOT related to Jodi's case. What's the point of treading a legal line when Jodi's case is not even involved?
We put the facts out there, we followed the lead, and now it's closed.
If you want to bash the site because you think we're hiding something - that's fine. The only thing that's being hidden is your identity! You mark your posts with frowning face! Really?! That tells me you're really not bringing anything to table anyway except pessimism in hiding anyway...(in your last post, you even admit you can't help anyway).
Most people set up accounts and bring forth their honest opinions in search of what happened to Jodi. This was one of your last posts:
[i]"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."[/i]
Really? Censorship? C'mon man. Nothing better to talk about in Fergus Falls, MN than the fact you think I'm censoring?
You're pulling the attention away from Jodi's case, so thanks for your "good luck wish on the project". We're moving on.
i posted the definition of censorship not to accuse you of anything but to let others read the definition so they may understand why some material is justified to be removed. i am very sorry i didn't make that clear. a site like yours needs to remove stuff at times. my last comment was not accusing you of doing anything wrong; i just feel saying it happened because of some users is not the whole truth. yeah, i'm in fergus falls, no big deal. sorry you think i am distracting everyone from the case. i spent many hours trying to help this site and the old site. mostly i used a happy face. change it back to members only if it works better. i think it is a good site. i was in no way bashing anything or anyone. if you want me to feel extremely bad, josh, it worked.
January 25, 2013
Thanks for the response. There's no hard feelings on this end. Too often, emails, text messages, forum posts, etc. are not easily deciphered. It's a pretty difficult way to communicate, actually. I appreciate you taking the time for you to clarify what you meant in the previous post.
I have received a number of messages from frustrated users explaining their malcontent in how we try to cover Jodi's case. There's no manual. There are no directions. If we had answer, we'd have solved this case by now. Some choose to voice their concerns publicly on the forum in an angry manner - others do it in a subtle, professional way.
I appreciate your professional response. And it's not too often that I respond to posts that deflect from the mission of the site; finding out what happened to Jodi.
I appreciate all of you who continually make FindJodi.com a daily stop. It gets frustrating that there isn't more to post. I guess that's what we need to come to expect from a case that's 14 years old. But I truly believe a website like this, with users who come together to follow leads, is the only way Jodi's case will be solved.
Thanks again, Bob, for your honest post. I wasn't out to make you feel bad - just motivated to move forward on the case without confusion from the users. The pulled Revak information was strictly a legal issue.
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 364
Newest Members:testing, OCDavid96, erika, accurate sensors, marknjohson150, Margot Robbie, walkerjames, girame, avotate, v6hrservices