BS: Opening threads - a debate.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Cluin
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:46 AM

Shatner could do it.

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: 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: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:24 AM

AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!

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: MMario
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:40 AM

jacqui, I feel your pain.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:25 PM

N.B.
G.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

$200 to Joe, Shambles. Pay up.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 07:21 AM

I sit here desperately trying to think of a way you could be a bigger asshole Shambles, but I just can't do it.

What's with this freedom of speech bullshit? This is the internet numbnuts! There is no law of free speech on the net, something you'd know if you went anywhere else besides here at the 'Cat. Most sites would have banned your simple ass ages ago and eradicated all of your precious words from their threads.

Shambles says:"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."

Try to get this through the mush that is all that remains of your brain. A site owner chooses the people who are to assist in the daily workings of the website, generally known as Moderators. Moderators are almost always anonymous and use another screen name when performing their duties. The reason is that the site owner takes all responsibility for their actions and all complaints about them should be done by PM with the owner. THAT is the way things function at larger forums and Mudcat qualifies as a large forum. YOU have no reason to know who they are, simply direct complaints to the site owner. At most places, anyone even beginning to launch into a diatribe against a Mod would be banned, at least temporarily, from the forum and the thread deleted. Mudcat tries to be more open and free than most other places and for that you need to say a prayer of thanks. But YOU have no reason to know who did what and when. All you need to know is that if you have a complaint you need to take it to Max via PM.

While I'm at it, I am NOT a "fellow poster" of yours. I try to select even casual acquaintenances who are free of the more serious mental problems and whatever ails your sorry ass is no small thing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

...had the dream again, It was Spaw...he kept making me say, "I can't respect any Forum that would have me as a poster"...it was ugly...


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 12:59 PM

OK, Shambles, this is serious. We're talking big money here. My messages are my creation, and I have a right to them. Just as you as a poster have a right to your messages, I have a right to mine. That right does not extend to thread titles that show up as an index on the Forum Menu, but it does cover the text of messages.

You have ranted for years how about how the words of yourself and your "fellow posters" should be sacrosanct, and I agree with that. Well, MY words are sacrosanct, too; and I do not want you plagiarizing them any more. My fee for each quote is $100, payable in advance of any use of my words.

Pay up, or shut up!!

-Joe Offer, the owner of his own words-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM

Dear GawdinEvvin, I cannot believe this dialogue is still goingt on!!! ROFLMAO.

Sham, aincha got nuffin better to do? Couldn't you go build an outhouse or sumpn?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:11 PM

Was it ever established - that the first time that Closing threads was (in Joe Offer's judgement) wrongly closed - it was done so unintentionally - as the first so-called 'honest' answer to our forum implied?

It will be clear to the many remaining sensible posters - that our forum's current editing set-up is not open, fair or accountable but has a built-in secrecy. Is this heavy-handed approach really proportionate or needed?

The requirement for our volunteer fellow posters to remain anonymous - seemingly at all costs - makes even supplying our forum with the totally honest answers to a fairly simply question (like the one above) - impossible. Which makes it look as if there really is something to hide and where it is impossible to defend any accusation of impartiality in these editing actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM

the "many remaining sensible posters" - that would be the two - or is it three - that have responded favorurably to your threads?

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

MMario are you seriously asking our forum to consider that a totally honest answer has been provided to the simple question of whether a thread's imposed closure was intentional?

We are informed that the answer to who was responsible for the closure has eventually been established - so why is it a problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:49 PM

No,Roger,I am expecting you to act like a rational being and accept the facts as stated; that Joe has provided what information he will provide you and that any more information will require that you contact Max off forum.

Joe is under NO obligation whatsoever to furnish you with ANY information (nor is Max for that matter).

I also have to wonder why "a totally honest answer has been provided " is expected when you continually twist and distort the truth in the attempt to validate your agenda - and have yet to apologize for a single one of your mis-qoutes, qoutes out of context etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:57 PM

1. You've already been given the answer, many times.

2. Even if you hadn't been, you don't have the right to demand an answer anyway.

But you already know that, don't you.

What you don't seem to get is that no amount of passive-aggressive bullying is going to make anyone cave in just to shut you up.

Y

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:01 PM

You will see from the following Closing threads that it was not thought to be a problem for Joe Offer to suggest and speculate that this closure may have been accidental and that he himself may have unknowingly closed it.

Now that that the circumstances have been established - why should it be thought problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:05 PM

Y    A    W    N   !

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

100 :-)