I understand the rationale of keeping the ambient free from distractions so that the paying subscriber may conduct his business unmolested. However, in this case, truth-photographer is one of the instructors in the course and self-promotion here by using another nick is as manipulative as using another nick to jack up the bidding price of an auction in B& S. Potential customers should be given the opportunity to alert the public and question to weed out such deception. I know Knowledge Bowl has claimed that truth-photographer, though created by Steven Lee, is used by a group of his former students. Trying to exonerate him and relieve him from the responsibility for creating the account with this excuse is naive and an insult to the intelligence of CS members. The only way he can be excused is if he had not authorised it's use, no knowledge of misuse and no opportunity to correct the situation otherwise he must be held responsible as if he made the post himself. The onus of proving it rests with him. Yet, on the contrary, he has participated in the same thread as both truth-photographer and Steven Lee. Therefore, a prudent man must assume he had full knowledge of the postings, approved of the contents and made no effort to correct it and therefore can and must be held accountable. In fact, in this thread, Knowledge Bowl's reply to truth-photographer and continuing to allow it to remain after both truth-photographer and Steven Lee were deregistered my be construed as consent to the actions and the desire to continue its misuse and opens Knowledge Bowl to queries regarding its credibility and integrity.
Allowing truth-photographer's post and Knowledge Bowl's reply to remain whilst moving chong lin's query, therefore, may not be the right or beneficial to CS members. It may appear that CS is protecting Knowledge Bowl and shielding it from legitimate questions from other members.
