BS: GUEST?

Subject: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:09 PM

This has been discussed for at least a dozen years on many threads in this forum but... fer fuck sake... could the admins just enforce allowing 'guests' to posts as guest with a consistent handle as it was REQUIRED in days yore (which I still don't agree with... who cares!).

Here's my 'bug'. I recently read a thread and somebody posted as GUEST X and I read the post(s) and I know it ain't X. X don't write like that and X wouldn't say the shit that Fake X said (wrote... yeah I know the diff).

Guest posts below the line?... well, that's allowed now. That's cool with me with a consistent handle. Guest posts with no handle... well, that's allowed now. And it pisses me off. Stop it. When I want to take someone to task for their ignorant bullshit, I wanna call them out by their name and "GUEST" don't butter my bread.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:14 PM

You've never revealed your real name, hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:31 PM

That's not what he was talking about, Jack. He was talking about consistency. I have no clue WHO he means, though.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:42 PM

But, and bugger me sideways with a bent banana if I'm wrong, what he suggests would at least be PROGRESS. You can't look at any Guest's posting history because all Guest posts in the search are lumped together into an effin' huge great single list. Pointless or what. In the ideal world, as with the Gaughan forum, which you know well, Jack, we'd all know exactly who we were talking to, just like down the pub. What's not to like? If we really must allow unlogged-in people to post (an utterly insane policy but hey, it ain't my gig), then at least we should insist on unique monikers. But why let unregistered and unlogged-in people post anyway? Bloody stupid! It just allows cowardly bigots to post bile and hide behind all the other Great Unnamed Ones. Complete bullshit. Gnu can be a bit of an arse but he's on the money here. Are you listening, mods? Thought not!

---

Characterizing the volunteer staff as deaf to your complaints assumes facts not in evidence. This moderator would love to have consistent guest names used at all times. Particularly in the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:55 PM

gnu is correct, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 10:03 PM

Definitely. I leap enthusiastically on to his bandwagon.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 10:26 PM

Steve we very recently had a fairly serious talk on this on another thread.
I know your long standing absolutist stance;
you know the more relaxed and flexible view & reasoning I adhere to.

"posting as guest just seems a no big deal default position unless I write something intentionally consistent with my long 'established mudcat ID / persona'.
Otherwise, I don't care if posterity credits me for random thoughts and statements here at mudcat - no matter how incisive or ridiculous.
We all have our odd quirks and idiosyncrasy. I'm not particularly driven by ego. I can't be bothered with all that tiresome nonsense."

I occasionally deliberately choose to remain anonymous when the point is more important and pertinent to a discussion
than the ID of the person making it..
To avoid the ad hominem rancour and stalking from thread to thread which plagues mudcat.

I suggested a compromise solution which might not be beyond the tech capabilities of Mudcat Admin.

"Steve, if this was my site and I had the technology, I'd implement a system whereby any 'From: box' left blank would be allocated a randomly generated name based on IP;
and that name would appear consistently whenever that IP posted anonymously...
Many of the random names might be very unflattering depending on my whims when programming the system.
That'd be a fair compromise ??? But it aint my site."

We are both annoyed that a few extreme reactionary arseholes screw it up for all other 'GUESTS'.

But I do feel your 'need' to make background checks on Guest posters that piss you off
just a bit uptight and OCD.

That's mudcat mods job, to monitor [and get their knickers in a twist] over who posts what ???

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 10:33 PM

and I know you are fond of your paper bag heads in pubs metaphor.
But this aint a cosy old local pub.
It's the, like it or not, entirely different dimensional universe of the international internet.

Though a jukebox, and a stinky old dog snoring by the mudcat faux log fireplace would be a nice idea.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,That guy who started the hate speech thread
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 11:11 PM

Gnu, steve, rapparree

You know why you're the most vocal opponents of GUEST posting? Because it keep you from stigmatizing the posters repeatedly for their beliefs. It could almost be argued that forcing users to use use names is akin to forced to wear those wristbands you protest so stongly--they are designed to help but infact facilitate diatribe rants towards them where you assault them. Which was what I was trying to point out in that thread I had started. You give them lovely monickers like "akehateon" for simply disagreeing with you and their past history of disagreeing with you. Much like Muslims stigmatized by "stars". Speaking of clearing up things about my last thread, I'd like to point our that two of you (congrats Shimrod and Steve, I think? I can't remember who the second one was at the moment) managed to call me a loathful, racist, hateful conservative--despite the fact that I point-blank mentione that at the onset of the article. So congrats for missing that. The planks in your own eyes don't prevent you from seeing the splinters in others', I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,guy go started the hate speech thread
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 11:15 PM

Mentioned that I was in fact in areement with your political views. Minor typo there

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 11:45 PM

I'll just add to my previous 2 posts.

[BTW, I'm not GUEST,guy go started the hate speech thread;
and I got bored with that thread and soon enough stopped bothering to read it]

I do find it all the more ironic that we are all here in the first place,
dwelling in a forum that primarily celebrates the heritage and tradition
of unknown unattributable anonymous songwriters, poets, and story tellers...!!!???

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 12:01 AM

For years, we had a policy requiring Guests to use a consistent "handle." There were advantages and disadvantages to that policy, and Max changed the policy about three years ago. Max is the owner of Mudcat, so he can do what he wants. Don't blame it on moderators.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 01:03 AM

"Max is the owner of Mudcat, so he can do what he wants."
.,,.
A questionable assertion imo, Joe. I am the owner of my car, but there are restrictions on the manner and speed in & at which I may drive it. My rights here are trumped by considerations of the common good.

So might it not be argued that Max might at least feel it incumbent on him take the welfare and interests of members of his forum into consideration in the regulations he makes?; so that eg anonymous posting may once again be forbidden as both confusing and irrefutable?

I suggest again that it should be possible to program so that any post without the 'From' section completed would not even 'take'.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 01:57 AM

A couple of things to think about...

If I have something to say which I don't have the cojones to say in my Logged-in name, I leave it unsaid.

Max may 'own' Mudcat but, if posters cease to post, there will be no Mudcat, and he will 'own' Sweet Fuck All.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 02:32 AM

I used to argue against the policy as long ago as the 90s.
I still do not like the abuses it can lead to, but I have come to accept it as part and parcel of Mudcat.

Before the Israel thread closed, a Guest made this point.
"we can focus on the post, not the poster."

Steve quoted it back and strongly disagreed, but it is the exact argument Musket used for claiming multiple identities.

From Musket you accepted it without complaint or even comment Steve.
Why the difference?

Guest also said it avoids personal attack.
He is right about that.
On contentious issues there is often posting about the person instead of the issues.
Steve has been guilty of exactly that in recent days, falsely accusing me of far-right views but unable to actually quote one that I have ever posted, and misrepresenting things said in old irrelevant threads.

You are part of the problem Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 03:05 AM

Anonymity does not prevent personal attacks. This was the very last post on the mentioned Israeli terrorist thread -

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:07 PM

Your obsessiveness is making me concerned for your mental health.

The only thing anonymity protects is the ability for people to snipe from the sidelines with no one knowing who they are. That is not a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 03:26 AM

Of course being anonymous protects you from personal attack.
No-one knows which person you are!

Also it is impossible to misrepresent things you have never said on long forgotten threads in hope of demonising you, a tactic used by Steve and Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM

" a tactic used by Steve and Jim2
This is the very reason these threads get closed -
Whining about personal attacks by making pesonal attacks is....well, it beggars belief really.
Scoring points rather than sharing information has done more damage to these discussions than anything else - far more than the name- calling that everybody indulges in - thinking of having a tee shirt descrining mysellf as a "no-nothing, leftie Muppet" all used by people who constantly whinge about being insulted - no names, mind you.
I'm told by one dubious parent that he uses latter to is children - explains a lot about the state of the world today!
Personally, I am not unhappy about anonymous guest postings - usually you can sort out the intention of the individual concerned and deal with it.
I do think that allowing anonymous guests to open threads lays this forum open to trolls - having been one of the victims of one of these hacking into my facebook and changing personal data, I believe it to be a serious problem which needs addressing.
Other than that - if you don't want to be personally attacked, don't indulge in the exercise yourseld - slippery slope and all that.
Another thing to bear in mind is, don't say anything you may regret later - its quite likely to come back and bite your bum - again no names.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM

"... two of you (congrats Shimrod and Steve, I think? I can't remember who the second one was at the moment) managed to call me a loathful, racist, hateful conservative ..."

Well I've gone back and re-read what I posted and nowhere in my post can I find the words "loathful", "racist", "hateful" or "conservative". Funny that! Were you confusing my post with someone else's post, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 04:58 AM

Very sensible posts from Dave and Backwoodsman there. Yep, my mental health called into question by an anonymous sniper. Nice. The torrent of weird Guest posts in this thread tempts me say that I rest my case. And what's that about "background checks" when it's at 'ome? I want to know who bloody posted what, that's all, not find out your shoe size fer chrissake! Finally, any member who then chooses to post without logging in or using his name is posting under multiple identities. That cannot be condoned and I don't care who's doing it, friend or foe. It is not allowed on any other forum I use. In fact, it gets you kicked off most of them. It's dishonest and deceitful.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 05:13 AM

'Guest consistent name' or 'Guest' are merely 2 options - hardly multiple.

Logging in under that same consistent name is something I dropped years ago due to no longer wanting to be bothered by PMs.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 05:29 AM

Personally I not really bothered one way or the other. As Steve has stated this forum is not real life.

However there is one good reason for using a personal log-in and that is no one can post using it apart from yourself.

I am aware that people other than myself have posted as Guest: Raggytash. Fortunately, for the most part, the Mods have seen these posts and deleted them.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 05:37 AM

Total bollocks, Guest. You do not have to even look at your PMs if you don't want to. A cursory glance at the little red number is all it gets from me. To suggest that PMs "bother" you is just so bloody stupid. Another pathetically false justification for dishonest behaviour. And posting under two identities is multiple. It is, was and always will be. Any more lame-duck excuses? It's getting quite entertaining now!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:01 AM

I amicably disagree - one is a consistent identity, the other is a total absence of identity.

Thought for the day:
Mudcat BS, a community held together by the bonding glue of ego, animosity, and pernicious grudges.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:07 AM

"Characterizing the volunteer staff as deaf to your complaints assumes facts not in evidence. This moderator would love to have consistent guest names used at all times. Particularly in the BS section."

Just spotted this addendum to my post. OK, I went over the the top a bit there. It's just that recent complaints about this have generally been met with silence. I'm glad you agree, though I still think that no-one not logged in should be allowed to post. There is no difference in ease or otherwise of identification, or the ability to simply see who's posted what, between a guest with a unique moniker and a unique moniker. Allowing non-members or unlogged-in people to post merely invites bad behaviour and not one of the excuses provided by these frauds here washes. You have more influence with the owner of this board than us so you may wish to pass it on. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:09 AM

"Mudcat BS, a community held together by the bonding glue of ego, animosity, and pernicious grudges."
Thought for the day:
Then why post to it?
Seems you could get the same satisfaction by sticking needles under your fingernails.
Such a statement is a fine example of "ego, animosity, and pernicious grudges" if there ever was one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:09 AM

Ha, keep 'em coming. "An absence of identity" is it now. Very droll. Who do you think you are, the Holy Ghost?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:32 AM

Raggytash - 01 Feb 16 - 05:29 AM

"Personally I not really bothered one way or the other."

Of course you aren't bothered Raggy after all you have often posted as Anonymous GUEST to hide your own hypocrisy. So have many of those complaining most about the practice.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:38 AM

"Of course you aren't bothered Raggy after all you have often posted as Anonymous GUEST to hide your own hypocrisy. "
It really would help a half decent discussion of posters didn't behave like trolls when posting - we've already had a couple of personal attacks complainigna bou personal attacks.
Any chance this one will be the last?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:50 AM

With apologies to Jeremy and Dick Gaughan, who both run very orderly forums with minimal visible moderation and overwhelmingly civil behaviour. From TheSession rules:

It's strictly one membership per person here at The Session. Anyone caught faking a new membership will be expelled.

From the Gaughan Forum rules:

It is a requirement of forum membership that you let the other members know who you are. There is not a single good reason in a forum of this kind for anonymity. If you are normally known by a nickname, by all means use it...The no-anonymity rule is not here to check people's birth certificates, it is simply so that we all know who we're talking to and the risk of anonymous trolling is reduced...

Anonymous Guest posting by someone who is already a registered member here is tantamount to faking a second identity. They are doing it so that the rest of us don't know who they are, then the next minute they could be posting under their usual login. That is totally nonsensical. By any measure, that is assuming two identities. And allowing outsiders who aren't even registered members to post is to invite fly-by trolling. Daft. As I said, note that the two websites I refer to are orderly, civil places requiring, at worst, light-touch moderation. Wouldn't that be nice?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:56 AM

Has steve started this week with his 'angry', or his 'angrier' hat on ???

You'll note that in all my exchanges with him over the 'guest issue' I have remained calm and friendly,
whilst my littles indulgences in sarcasm are nowt compared to his blustering belligerence.

Steve you opt to sign in with your real life ID - good on you, that's your free choice - that's definitely to be respected.
All power to your cookie.

But it don't give you the right to act like a crusading bull with steam blowing out it's nose and ears.

I'm not bothered to log in any more, simple as that.

If this was a real life pub, I'd guess you'd be the bloke at the bar holding forth, ranting on,
and I'd be in a corner somewhere supping a pint and reading a paper,
avoiding eye contact until you got off your hobby horse and calmed down a bit.

Then we'd share a few jokes and laughs.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

Terribus claims that I have posted as a guest. He may be correct, he may be incorrect. He has no knowledge of how many people have access to the computer I frequently use and thus even if IPS addresses were checked he could not know it was me posting. Nor does he have any knowledge of how many computers I have access to, I could for example use the local library computer or the local Internet Café computers or use my tablet via a Cloud site or the network in a local pub.

Basically what he is saying if someone posts as a guest and he doesn't like that post it must therefore be Raggytash.

Quite rational ............... for Terribus.

And I do note once again that although he complains of personal attacks it's OK if he is the one doing the attacking.

I think you will find Terribus I have never complained about personal attacks, this site as has been stated before is not real life.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:58 AM

Well I'm "complaining" the most, Teribus, and I don't do it. Campaigning might be a better word. Why, it's even possible to do it by accident when your cookie goes missing. Honest people around here who have done that always send a second post, swiftly identifying themselves. If you have a point to make, you should WANT people to know it's coming from you. There's something shady and disreputable about not wanting that. Why wouldn't you want it?


Cue fake excuses from the self-important...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:02 AM

Btw.. this is Max's Mudcat, not any other forum.

I can imagine steve knocking on the door of a senior citizens swingers club, demanding they take off their feathery ball room masks before he'll pay to come in.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:02 AM

Your behaviour is dishonest, Guest. Not only that, you start off with a snide comment. It's your modus operandi and you wouldn't do it if we knew who you were. You make my case for me, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:05 AM

"It's your modus operandi and you wouldn't do it if we knew who you were."

Oh yes I would !!!.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:08 AM

"Btw.. this is Max's Mudcat, not any other forum."

No shit, Sherlock. <>eye-rolling emoticon

"I can imagine steve knocking on the door of a senior citizens swingers club, demanding they take off their feathery ball room masks before he'll pay to come in."

Btw.. This is Max's Mudcat, not any other gig.

Do try to occasionally employ the intelligence that the good Lord bestowed on you. Or is the ability to be insufferably stupid yet another good reason for staying anonymous?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM

You can accuse me of dishonesty, I can accuse you of aggressive control freakery..

so what, neither of us would be entirely right.

The point you emphasise for me is that you refuse to distinguish between the far right arsehole gusts, and every other guest.

You use the same bitter angry words to lash out at all.

So.. Monday now, let's see how long I can go without giving in and using my consistent guest / ex member log in name ???

Not that it really matters, because I will never attempt to mask my IP from mudcat mods.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM

Steve, the worst abuse of this forum was by "Team Musket", you supported them and joined the lynch mob when they viciously set about myself and shortly afterwards, Keith.

They still do it.....but fortunately the mods are usually on their case before too long....and deserve credit for that.

The only reason you are complaining about GUESTS is that these particular GUESTS don't like the M.O. of you or your friends..

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:19 AM

oh.. I'm no better or worse than most decent folk - a healthy mixture of intelligent and stupid

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:26 AM

Seems to be heading for 'Closed' station already
Pity - I was looking forward to sorting out a serious problem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:31 AM

If this was a real life pub, I'd guess you'd be the bloke at the bar holding forth, ranting on, and I'd be in a corner somewhere supping a pint and reading a paper

Completely untrue. You cannot be anonymous in a pub no matter how quietly you sit in your corner. And you cannot sit in your corner at all while getting involved in arguments. If you want anonymity, live in a cave and keep away from pubs. And forums. There is simply no excuse for anonymous guest postings.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:35 AM

Jim, the ball is in Max's Court.

I actually agree with Steve, and other 'anti guest' members, on certain points.
But not the confrontational way he chooses to engage in expressing them.


""Steve, if this was my site and I had the technology, I'd implement a system whereby any 'From: box' left blank
would be allocated a randomly generated name based on IP;
and that name would appear consistently whenever that IP posted anonymously...
Many of the random names might be very unflattering depending on my whims when programming the system.
That'd be a fair compromise ??? But it aint my site.""

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:42 AM

Steve needs to lighten up, and his mates dont need to be drawn in supporting him on the minutest pedantic points of illustrative metaphors.

I was actually proposing about a real life pub scenario away from all this BS nonsense..

You're all mostly a bunch of decent blokes, me to.
Except, for some odd reason, within this contained hothouse world of mudcat BS bollocks and twattery..

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:54 AM

God knows how many bloody Guests are in this thread. They/he/she/it are stupid enough to make a cast-iron case against themselves without any intervention from anyone else! I love being characterised as a control freak by the way. Genius. I have as much prospect of controlling anything here as a flea that a tiger has just chewed up and swallowed. As a final note, no you are not a decent bloke if you choose to post provocative nonsense from a position of total anonymity. You're just a self-important fraud. The most amusing thing of all is that I could, for all I know, be saying that to my best mate. How would I know? Why would I care? One speaks as one finds and that's honest.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:54 AM

Well I hope that, despite my occasional grumpiness, I'm not included in your 'Lynch Mob', Ake, but I completely agree wth Steve about un-named GUEST postings, and I've made my position clear on that quite a few times over the years.

It's impossible to hold a conversation with an un-named GUEST when there are a number of un-named GUESTS taking part and, if you apply some thought to this, you'll understand that the very fact of being un-named gives them an advantage, which is neither fair nor reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:59 AM

To avoid the ad hominem rancour and stalking from thread to thread which plagues mudcat.

Yup, this covers it.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 07:59 AM

"Jim, the ball is in Max's Court."
We have the right to make suggestions, surely, and the best we to get those suggestions listened to is not to behave in the manner that has closed thread after thread - the confrontational bollocks and twattery is coming from all sides here - as a fellow Liverpudlian used to say, "Calm down, Calm down lads".
I'm beginning to think that the fact that I can no longer tell which guest is saying what is a case for reforming the situation Are we talking to one Guest or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:33 AM

"Steve, if this was my site and I had the technology, I'd implement a system whereby any 'From: box' left blank
would be allocated a randomly generated name based on IP"
Worth at least a discussion - surely?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:42 AM

Raggytash - 01 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

1: Terribus claims that I have posted as a guest. He may be correct, he may be incorrect.

I know I am correct Raggy you're on record admitting having done so. Other indicators are the style and content and points being made. On one particular thread you adopted the anonymous GUEST label as what you were saying in "public" did not match up to what you had written in "private" - continuation of your poorly informed drivel could only continue on that thread with you posting as an "anonymous" GUEST.

2: Basically what he is saying if someone posts as a guest and he doesn't like that post it must therefore be Raggytash.

Quite rational ............... for Terribus.

Putting words in my mouth again Raggy - you're quite good at that, along with making unsubstantiated allegations and accusations and declaring that they will never be justified.

3: "And I do note once again that although he complains of personal attacks it's OK if he is the one doing the attacking."

Who is attacking who? I most certainly am not. I am just making an observation and stating fact.

4: "I think you will find Terribus I have never complained about personal attacks, this site as has been stated before is not real life."

Well you certainly seem to be complaining about the practice in 3: above.