BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

$200 to Joe, Shambles. Pay up.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:25 AM

Now, is this about out-of-control clones or about out-of-control clowns?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:07 AM

As for the closure of the "closing threads" thread, I gave you an honest answer. I did not know at first who closed the thread temporarily and why, and today I got my answer and now I know. I am not at liberty to reveal internal information beyond that. If you have a need of additional information, please contact Max.
-Joe Offer-

Does the above and the following quote demonstrate a double standard? Ordinary posters are expected (by you) to 'take responsibilty' and expected to 'use a name' and are threatened (by you) if they do not comply.

On the other hand you protect the right of volunteer fellow posters not to 'take responsibilty' for their actions and to remain anonymous whilst they wrongly (in your judgement) impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters. Posters who are named and who do 'take responsinibilty' for their actions - along with threats, name-calling and abusive personal attacks.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

In the absence of any full explanation and of any totally honest answer - perhaps it is safe for our forum to assume that the error in closing Closing threads for the first time was as intentional as the second and final closure was. And the reasons for both closures - just as unclear and equally as invalid.

It would appear that the need to protect our few obviously out-of-control, anonymous volunteer fellow posters from any embarrassment on our forum - is now more important than accountability and the freedom of expression of all contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 05:28 AM

So, Shambles, you have quoted my "pain in the ass" passage at least ten times - and I don't think SuperSearch includes the two times you quoted the passage in this very thread. At $100 a quote for royalties, that's a pretty hefty chunk of change. Pay up.

As for the closure of the "closing threads" thread, I gave you an honest answer. I did not know at first who closed the thread temporarily and why, and today I got my answer and now I know. I am not at liberty to reveal internal information beyond that. If you have a need of additional information, please contact Max.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 05:06 AM

Yes, you provide a link - but the implication seems to be that my words were directed at you, which they weren't.

The concern is not which fellow posters such threats may be directed at on our forum - but who these threats are coming from. Perhaps someone who reveals such an selective attitude toward the freedom of speech on a discussion forum set-up by Max the site's owner for the invited contributions of the public - is not the ideal person to be trusted with the power to impose this attitude upon all of their fellow posters?

You have implied that Closing threads was closed for the first time accidentally. Now that you have informed our forum (when closing it for a second time) that you have eventually established which of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters was responsible for this error - can you confirm whether the first closure was in fact intentional? Or whether it was accidental - as you have earlier implied?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:35 AM

So, Shambles, do you have a reason for all these Joe Offer quotes? Is there some reason why you seem to claim a right to use my words with such wild abandon? Don't I have a right to say my own words, without having to be concerned about your constant misuse of my words by quoting them out of context? In the previous two messages, you have copy-pasted the same Joe Offer quote from 2003, twice. What is your reason for that? Yes, you provide a link - but the implication seems to be that my words were directed at you, which they weren't.

I hereby request that you cease copy-pasting my words without obtaining advance permission from me. If you wish to include my words in a post, please be sure to submit a royalty check with your permission request. $100 per quote is my fee.

Besides, this obsession of yours is just plain spooky, quoting me dozens, maybe hundreds of times like you do. Are you some kind of stalker?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:23 AM

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

To be fair - the above quote should perhaps be seen in context.

Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 07:53 PM

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 03:16 PM

Sorry Frank, we've been having a problem on the 'Cat as you know and Max is working on it but I'm afraid there has been some leakage and bleedover into aspects of the 3-D world. Your dream is a case in point. It seems pretty accurate overall as that IS a scenario often used here but the bleedover has blurred things and that is NOT Joe Offer......it's me.

And I AM out after your ass so watch yourself.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 02:49 PM

I have this recurring dream...I'm sitting in a very uncomfortable computer chair, tears in my eyes, a bright light in my face. Joe Offer is standing behind me holding what appears to be a gun. It may not be a real one but nevertheless it is situated directly behind my right ear. I can hear him saying, "Type scumbag!!! People are waiting for this thread!" And then....

Me: But I don't wanna open a thread on how Quantum Physics relates to music!
Joe: Shut up ya no good whining Mudcattin piece of garbage!!! Open the Thread!
Me: No, I won't.
Joe: Do it!
Me: No!
Joe: Yes! Or I'll start randomly closing threads you've started!
Me: OH NO! Anything but that!!!!
Joe: Watch me, and then tomorrow I'll claim it was an accident! Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaa!!!
Me: They'll never believe that will they?
Joe: Oh no?? Just watch.....

Next thing I know, I'm sitting by myself, going through threads and nothing I ever submitted was there, it was like I never existed, like some Clone clicked on delete and I dissappeared. My kid walked in the room and said, "Hey Mom there's a strange man using our computer!!" Damn those clones!!!!!!!!

Uh, it could happen couldn't it? I mean, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get ya, right?


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

Was it ever established in fact - that the first time that thread was wrongly closed - it was done so unintentionally - as implied?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:52 PM

See also the following thread.

Closing threads

Which you will not now be able to open, and refresh by making any further contributions to that debate - as imposed editing action has now closed that thread - for the second time. And for reasons that are as unclear as the first time. But this time our forum does at least know who was responsible for its closure.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 05 - 04:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread!
G..

Having known who started this thread (as if this really matters) - it has not prevented you from posting to this thread a further three times? *Smiles*

For I am sure that had such posters as you - with all the answers - actually entered this debate - the answer to the following would have been explained to us all in this thread - long ago.

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:07 PM

No, that's a smelt. Spelt is a grain.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:45 PM

Isn't "spelt" a kind of sardine?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:25 PM

N.B.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:21 PM

My take on all of this - not that anyone asked - is that Shambles is offended by thread drift whenever it shows up in his threads. It's tough to admit that we can't control a thread after it's been opened. It's almost as if a levee has broken. That's a real problem. Thread drift is not.

Thread drift is a joy because it is a natural process - what is very well evidenced here in this thread - is not that natural process. Rather than certain posters accepting that our forum is open for anyone to post any view and open for anyone to equally ignore any view - a concious attempt is mounted by certain posters and eagerly if sadly followed by others - to control the postings of others - rather than to respond or to ignore them.

It has never mattered on our forum how well a view is expressed, spelt or grammatically constructed. Our forum's joy was that an equal welcome was given to all contributors and what was being said was thought more important that who was saying it or how they may have struggled to say it. Posting to laugh at and mock these attempts - were not usually encouraged - perhaps wisely?      

Time perhaps for a re-think and perhaps also a little logic?

Changes are now imposed upon thread titles - (well they are upon mine) - only it is claimed - to make the subject of the thread 'clear' to our forum's readers.

Now if - having opened a thread for example called. 'Opening threads - a debate' - you then intentionally post - for whatever reason - not to contribute to the debate, answer a question or propose a solution - but to talk about any other subject - this will result in the thread's title not being representitive of its contents. There is a danger then of it being judged as unclear and could possibly result a new title being imposed by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters.

So perhaps if certain posters insist on posting to this thread only to talk about grammar, have conversations with each other about other fellow posters or post anything other than the subject of this thread - perhaps it would be better for them to start another thread - titled to clearly show our forum's readers what the subject of this new thread was?

It could very well be that no one does wish to post to this thread to debate the subject - if so - without all of these other posts refreshing this thread - perhaps it will die a natural death? Otherwise it looks set to become yet another 1000 post thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:42 PM

So he's a control freak... the very thing he ostensibly criticizes his anonymousvolunteerfellowposter people for.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:34 AM

My take on all of this - not that anyone asked - is that Shambles is offended by thread drift whenever it shows up in his threads. It's tough to admit that we can't control a thread after it's been opened. It's almost as if a levee has broken. That's a real problem. Thread drift is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:15 AM

Spaw, what Sham said (until Frank can give us a proper translation) is: "When you post to a thread, you refresh it, no matter what you say." Ironically (and I'm sure it was an intentional demonstration) Shambles' own post actually refreshed the thread.

Phillip goes to his doctor because his wife was too shy. He say, "Doc, my wife's mammaries are migrating. They're headed south and she wonders if there's anything she can do. We can't affort surgery, everybody knows those creams are bogus. Is there anything we can afford that can help delay the motion of boobs?"

Doc replies, "Phil, a bustier."

I don't know that 'filibuster' fits what Sham does because a filibuster generally has some purpose. When it comes down to copy/pasting his previously ignored inanobilia = Shpam

This glut has actually ensured a couple of things:

No one with a functioning brain cell will ever again want Roger involved in their cause, on their side, because people see a complaint by him and figure its main purpose is for Shambles to demonstrate to the world he exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:09 AM

Sorry about that Spaw, I was busy testing out new recliners but JERI gets the recliner, I get the interprutter job...I got it straight now...ok, here we go...


"For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life."


Translated - To repeatedly complain about other posters, makes one go "AAAAAAAAAGGGG".

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Martin L King
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:16 AM

I have a dream... that one day,













oh, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:12 AM

They used to have a column in the magazine Private Eye called Pseud's Corner where they published extracts from pompous and pretentious speeches or writings by various people. Perhaps we could start a Mudcat Pseud's Corner or MPC; now who could we get to run it?
G..

BTW Roger some people open every thread other than the ones that are titled correctly naming a subject in which they are uninterested.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:06 AM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forcibly restrained from kicking another poater in the balls but many are lining up to have a go at Shambles.

"For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life."

Nothing in the above paragraph constitutes a sentence leaving us all to wonder once again, "What the fuck?"

Where is Pseudolus Frank? We need an interpreter here! Not that anyone particularly gives a shit, but it makes for some additional fun at Shambles expense. He, of course, cares nothing for such things as he is marching forward with his campaign against ... uh,er ... everything I guess. I say, "Go for it Lil' Dude!" Take care to watch your balls (I can send you a magnifying glass to help you find them).

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:55 AM

It's like one of those toys where you press a button and it repeats the same phrases over and over again, isn't it.

Keep it coming S******s - it's gettin' so I can even predict which one of those phrases is gonna come next - good game eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:51 AM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:50 AM

I seem to be getting this really strong feeling of deja-vu...........







































all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:40 AM

jacqui, I feel your pain.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:38 AM

Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:24 AM

AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:54 AM

For those who may not have read the original post and who may wish to try and answer the questions posed in it and who may wish to enter the debate on the issue - this is it.


As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Thread title changes are now imposed to ensure that it is clear to our forum's readers what the content of the thread may be – so a poster should have no real excuse for opening any thread with a title that may not be of interest them. And if they are still unsure – a quick scan will quickly indicate if the thread is of interest to them - or not.

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

In addition to displaying this lack of control over their own postings - some posters having repeatedly opened a thread that is not to their taste - seem to think that - in addition to only posting personal judgements of their fellow posters - they also have some right to control the postings of others. By instructing others to stop posting - and post requests for editing actions like deletion and closure – be imposed upon the posts of other posters - who are actively involved in posting - to address the thread's subject.

Can any one explain the logic of why any poster on our forum would wish to repeatedly open, post and refresh a thread that they state to be of no interest to them and also feel they have some right to prevent others from contributing to it?

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 04:18 AM

You mean Bush can read!!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:46 AM

Shatner could do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:00 AM

No, no no!...Bush talks in short, clipped, declarative phrases! A "perhaps" or a semi-colon or compound sentence would baffle him. Sham can toss about multiple-modifiers with impunity! Now, what I'd LOVE to see is Bush trying READ a speech written by Shambles!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: snarky
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 11:53 PM

I see the flies. Where is the Lord of the Flies?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:33 PM

AH!!! A light! A bright flash of insight! WOW!!!

Now I know who George Bush's speech writer is - it is - THE SHAMBLES!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:12 PM

Cluin, thanks for helping me to clue in. Frank did a better job of interpretation than I did, anyway, because it appears he was actually paying attention...and paying attention one less thing I'll have to attempt to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:00 PM

He offered the interpreter position to Pseudolus, Jeri.

You get an Associate position in his fat cat corporation. Send us all a Christmas card from Easy Street sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 08:55 PM

You just don't want me to sue when you steal my 'vision statement'. OK. As long as I get my own recliner.

I should warn you that in my position of Official Shambles Interpreter, if I don't fully grasp the meaning of these overstatements, I'm going to do my best to explain what he might have said if I'd understood it. You eventually have to hire somebody to interpret what I write, although it probably doesn't really matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:47 PM

Frank, I think you have it! I can see it now and I couldn't before. If no one posts then no one can possibly argue. I see this as being akin to those times when the 'Cat is down and by golly, Roger has a point on that. No posts=No 'Cat=No arguments and hence no way of insulting anyone. I didn't see it before but you unlocked it for us all Frank! I hereby crown you the

Official Shambles Interpreter

And now to Jeri ...

Jeri, the firm of Lane, Fielding, Patterson, and Swan, Layabouts-At-Large and For Hire, has been remiss in not having a female on board. I have no doubt this stems from our sexist ways and something we need to correct. I have long thought you had the right attitude to become a part of the firm and would like, with the approval of my partners, to offer you an Associate position. If things go as I suspect, you will be offered a full partnership in no time. We offer you the best in support to do nothing for our clients and remember our slogans ...

We do nothing for you, after all, it's the least we can do

AND

When Doing Sweet Damn All Is Just Too Damn Much, call LFPS

If you accept the position we would like to have the rights to your phrase, "Militant Apathy; Not Giving a Shit with Passion." Should you make full partner as I think you will, we would incorporate it into out logo advertising. Please let us know your decision as I feel you are one of us already.

Spaw
Founding Partner
LFPS

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:41 PM

After thast last fight with a Klingon where he got his stones ripped off, he bloated up. That's what happens to eunuchs. They also grow moobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM

Don't tell Little Hawk I said this, but it really is a shame what's happened to Sha__e_ in recent years. The guy seems to have gone bonkers - and he's gotten fat. I wonder if Uhuru and Heather Locklear would have anything to do with a fat old buffoon like him nowadays. He's just all washed up, poor guy.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:18 PM

Spaw,
   Here's my stab at it. I just simply kept in everything that I understood and deleted the rest...here goes...

"If all posters resist the temptation to post peace could well break out."

I agree...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:04 PM

Oh, now that's just too perfect.. Shambles... entertain John.. John... talk to Shambles...

You two should get on like a house on fire...

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:38 PM

Cluin... breaking new ground in the shameful field of typos

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:37 PM

Shambles... Beaking new ground in the exciting world of ++ créâtïve punctuation ++ and anarchic application of font tags

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

So Roger - you're saying that YOU have a problem with people replying to you? You're probably right, but one would expect, unless they have a compulsion and CAN'T stop themselves, that they would WANT people to reply. Maybe he really hopes people will stop replying. You know what they say: "it takes an entire village to ..." - no, it was something else about a village.

Spaw, I've considered suggesting Shambles create a glossary so we can know for sure what he's trying to say instead of trying to interpret it. Then I I realized, 1) it's more fun this way, and, 2) who cares?

My stab at it:

-If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others � and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out.

If people would refrain from posting their opinions or requesting editing of other people's opinions[1], and if the editors stopped being the first to complain[2], I might shut up. [3]

[1] I haven't seen anyone ask that another individual's message be edited.
[2] But we aren't - not unles you think everyone except you is a clone, which would be a GOOD reason to not 'come out, wouldn't you say?
[3] When flying is imposed upon porkers without their consent.

Spaw, this is too obviously a parody of his own style to be real. I think he's just trying to win people over by being Pythonesque...or maybe it's his Adams-ish [is that the correct spelling?] Vogon-like writing style, that indefinable French thing: 'je-ne sais quack'. I noticed the imposition of hyperhyphenism too. Perhaps asterisks will be next, or tildes. Who knows?

I can tell you I have no idea what he'd like to debate. Whether people shouldn't post their 'personal judgements' (opinions)? Right. You first, or we'll all get Rogered again. Wham-bam-thank-you-Sham.

This message has been brought to you by the "Make It Go Away, Make It Better, Or Laugh At It (MIGAMIBOLAI) Committee.
"Militant Apathy: Not giving a shit with passion!"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:30 PM

He loves italics too. Half the time I can't figure out what he's cut & pasted and what's new. But then even what's new is the S.O.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

Should that be Shitner?