Riobard

Not a butterface, a man of wax!   A man, young lady! Lady, such a man As all the world — why, he's a man of wax.    Nurse, Romeo & Juliet

No, you don’t get it, besides which “alibi” is used incorrectly.
A board member posts points of view that other members disagree with and that other members have the prerogative to refute. Frankly, I don’t follow all the themes related to the discourse among this particular board member and others here because polarized views are part and parcel of social media and often go on at length without resolution. Partisan positions are often articulated clearly and eloquently in the face of opposing perspective and mutually potentially expand thinking among the readership. 
However, I witness that a board member with his index finger crazy-glued to the downvote key puts forward the strategy that a concrete punitive measure outside the chatroom boundaries be levied against the first aforementioned member, be operated in coordinated fashion by the board membership. We don’t do that here. Such lobbying is nothing short of a temper tantrum. 
Subsequent to this, the board member whose livelihood is threatened simply indicates that undermining his activities is essentially an own goal due to the negative cascade effect that could ensue. He adds that the sabotaging proposition mirrors the approach taken by the entities the strategy is intended to suffocate.
What you just did is assert that that he implied that whatever might be salutary about his businesses justifies his points of view in a separate arena, that they somehow exist in a zero sum equation. This is a fallacy of logic, as if he buys into the notion, for example, that Hitler’s fondness for dogs and babies offsets the egregious. He made no such type of connection whatsoever.
He did not suggest that one corollary of his employment structure and activities was the privilege of an opinion. He simply intelligently opposed the shenanigans of another board member whose obvious antipathy and overzealous and usually misapplied cancel-culture bent led to idiotic scheming and a salvo that, as it turns out apart from having no legitimate place here, would lack intended impact.

WTAF?! Plotting to sabotage livelihood, egging on other members to do so, is but a shaky and odious proposition. That’s a hard no from me.

Right, the area within which this unfortunate incident took place does look “forest-y”. It seems to be situated within, bounded by, a fairly developed area. An unusual extended pattern of one or more barking domestic dogs apparently figured somewhat in alerting a local that something was amiss. As I wrote previously, I read the word ‘grove’ in one piece and ‘forest’ in another. I think, however, that a grove may be a few acres but would be lacking the extent of underbrush and other vegetation bridging the distance between the taller trees as seen in the images. 
An addition to the thread less tangential than has already occurred might be the nomenclature of a cake named after a wooded area that has a cherry orchard, cacao trees, and a cow pasture situated within it.
Attached are perpendicular vantage points at one corner of the space. 

This surprises me somewhat, as I view you as objective and fair.
I did not see the member’s post as a comment about duration of membership somehow quantifying opinion merit. Seniority is not a valid chatroom construct. I saw it as a reaction to the temerity of a member with an undeveloped grasp of the board’s code of conduct.
Surely by the two year mark it is understood that you don’t utilize knowledge of somebody’s personal information, however obtained, in plotting and urging the board as a collective to sabotage a member’s livelihood, however dramatic a difference in world view associated with the explicit scheming. 
I would be blowing my lid off, spitting tacks, and I have no objection to any less than ideal phrasing the recipient of the threat may have employed.
Nobody should be backed into the position of rebuttal against the type of intimidation that a miscreant gratuitously introduced. Let’s please be clear about who is behaving poorly and is snubbing his nose at anybody calling him out as if he alone possesses impunity.

It is not about "right" or "wrong", it is about behavior and forum etiquette. 

But an additional $2,000 for the stripper’s half-hour attendance to leap up out of the cake and sensually cleanse off buttercream and fondant in the makeshift shower. 

No, you don’t get it, besides which “alibi” is used incorrectly.
A board member posts points of view that other members disagree with and that other members have the prerogative to refute. Frankly, I don’t follow all the themes related to the discourse among this particular board member and others here because polarized views are part and parcel of social media and often go on at length without resolution. Partisan positions are often articulated clearly and eloquently in the face of opposing perspective and mutually potentially expand thinking among the readership. 
However, I witness that a board member with his index finger crazy-glued to the downvote key puts forward the strategy that a concrete punitive measure outside the chatroom boundaries be levied against the first aforementioned member, be operated in coordinated fashion by the board membership. We don’t do that here. Such lobbying is nothing short of a temper tantrum. 
Subsequent to this, the board member whose livelihood is threatened simply indicates that undermining his activities is essentially an own goal due to the negative cascade effect that could ensue. He adds that the sabotaging proposition mirrors the approach taken by the entities the strategy is intended to suffocate.
What you just did is assert that that he implied that whatever might be salutary about his businesses justifies his points of view in a separate arena, that they somehow exist in a zero sum equation. This is a fallacy of logic, as if he buys into the notion, for example, that Hitler’s fondness for dogs and babies offsets the egregious. He made no such type of connection whatsoever.
He did not suggest that one corollary of his employment structure and activities was the privilege of an opinion. He simply intelligently opposed the shenanigans of another board member whose obvious antipathy and overzealous and usually misapplied cancel-culture bent led to idiotic scheming and a salvo that, as it turns out apart from having no legitimate place here, would lack intended impact.

Obviously she is busy enough if she can afford such appalling client treatment . on another hand if she has more clients she can handle , what she needs receptionist for ?
We as customers may not like it but effectively she is saying ' go away, I can't help you in the foreseeable future" so take a hint
 

Have you considered saving the $6,000 and just do it yourself? Six thousand can but a lot of cake and booze.
Every wedding I've ever been to required a generous helping of the latter to anesthetize me.

Judge for yourself. I think it's here but I could be wrong.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a forest as, "Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban use."
https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf
Since 8 acres is 3.24 hectares, that would seem to qualify assuming the trees are at least 5 meters high, with a canopy cover of more than 10%. 

WTAF?! Plotting to sabotage livelihood, egging on other members to do so, is but a shaky and odious proposition. That’s a hard no from me.

Maybe they are catching up with the backlog because the turnaround time for my e-visa (received yesterday) was only two weeks.  Happily, it was also a ten-year visa.
Because the e-visa is not a stamp or glued into my passport, I'm going to make multiple backup copies for my computer and physical files. I do not want to misplace it! Plus I'm going to save the PDF as a JPG and store another copy on my phone in the album where I keep photos of my passport, vaccinations, etc.
Incidentally, quite a few seemingly authoritative visa companies stated that you can use your credit card report showing your maximum and available balance instead of sending your bank account details. That is what I did.
For my Chase Visa, I only sent the one "cover page" that shows the max and available balance (in Acrobat I added yellow highlights), rather than the additional pages that list all my specific monthly credit card charges. Apparently, that was fine.
Nice to have this wrapped up.

Thanks for support. Don't worry about this.

To be a "judge", he needs to be an expert and have good nerves. Neither one nor the other is characteristic of the subject.
As for the "executioner", who will pay attention to all this "let's go" from a forum participant with less than 2 years of experience? For me, such attempts evoke emotion, like watching someone else's child who has just wet his pants.
P.S. his finger is still glued

No, you don’t get it, besides which “alibi” is used incorrectly.
A board member posts points of view that other members disagree with and that other members have the prerogative to refute. Frankly, I don’t follow all the themes related to the discourse among this particular board member and others here because polarized views are part and parcel of social media and often go on at length without resolution. Partisan positions are often articulated clearly and eloquently in the face of opposing perspective and mutually potentially expand thinking among the readership. 
However, I witness that a board member with his index finger crazy-glued to the downvote key puts forward the strategy that a concrete punitive measure outside the chatroom boundaries be levied against the first aforementioned member, be operated in coordinated fashion by the board membership. We don’t do that here. Such lobbying is nothing short of a temper tantrum. 
Subsequent to this, the board member whose livelihood is threatened simply indicates that undermining his activities is essentially an own goal due to the negative cascade effect that could ensue. He adds that the sabotaging proposition mirrors the approach taken by the entities the strategy is intended to suffocate.
What you just did is assert that that he implied that whatever might be salutary about his businesses justifies his points of view in a separate arena, that they somehow exist in a zero sum equation. This is a fallacy of logic, as if he buys into the notion, for example, that Hitler’s fondness for dogs and babies offsets the egregious. He made no such type of connection whatsoever.
He did not suggest that one corollary of his employment structure and activities was the privilege of an opinion. He simply intelligently opposed the shenanigans of another board member whose obvious antipathy and overzealous and usually misapplied cancel-culture bent led to idiotic scheming and a salvo that, as it turns out apart from having no legitimate place here, would lack intended impact.

Yes, some positions seem so contrarian and incredulous as to defy logic. They may tend to stimulate surprise and rancour much more than influence real world outcomes.
You have amplified my point by missing the point. It was illogical to opine that someone whose logic escapes you in one matter, however legitimate your perspective in that subject topic, had put forward a defence regarding such logic based on unrelated activities that suggest a win for the overall good of an unrelated constituency.
Enjoy your vintage, in enough moderation so as to stay on track. Insinuating that I categorically dismiss, in gaslight fashion, your point of view viz a controversial matter within the domain of a third party’s obnoxious attempt at judge jury executioner status regarding that particular theme, is simply additional manipulative spin. I am on the side of objective logical debate. 

This does not work if I have in my hand a wine glass and you say its obviously an elephant. This debate does not work and requires correction, otherwise we eventually agree its really an elephant.

WTAF?! Plotting to sabotage livelihood, egging on other members to do so, is but a shaky and odious proposition. That’s a hard no from me.

WTAF?! Plotting to sabotage livelihood, egging on other members to do so, is but a shaky and odious proposition. That’s a hard no from me.

It seems to have sprung from a locally well known fromage tour operator a bit west of Montreal. When Trappist monks sell the farm there’s no telling what will evolve including its relation to the smell test and to variety on the in-flight cheese course trolley . 

Dorothy, my Golden girls hero along with Sophia, Blanche and Rose Nyland de St.Olaf , MN

My fingerprints were taken upon arrival and biometrically linked to my passport. I think that if I were somehow discovered dead with my water bottle and phone the authorities could figure out my identity. Of course it’s considerate to be conscientiously facilitative but I suppose offing oneself often precludes optimal organization.
Anyway, it turns out the deceased was identified fairly quickly somehow through CCTV footage leads. His planned stay had been set at 3 months and he had 5-6 weeks remaining
Incidentally just days before in the area the police intervened with a Russian male planning to leap to his death from a building. At first I thought that he was maybe eventually free to go and take a better stab at it.