In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)

Subject: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:24 AM

Perhaps whether the words 'UK' appear in a thread title or not can be left to the thread's originator - rather than be imposed by some anonymous volunteer - with time on their hands and nothing better to do?

Or is it now done automatically? I was amazed to see 'UK' added to a recent thread - a matter of minutes after the thread's creation and before anyone had a chance to respond.

Can the wishes of the origination be respected and any change to a thread's title only be undertaken with their knowledge and permission?

Thank you.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:16 AM

Hey, get a life!

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:32 AM

Well I for one am quite happy to have it.... I'm sick of hearing about exciting things happening in Portland, only to find it's Maine, rather than Dorset or Oregon.

Mind you..... exciting things on Portland is a bit of an oxymoron..

LTS

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:34 AM

oh for Chirst's Sake Shambles!

Will you take the poker out of your ass and get back to the real world?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 01:40 PM

Well I for one am quite happy to have it.... I'm sick of hearing about exciting things happening in Portland, only to find it's Maine, rather than Dorset or Oregon.

The issue is not whether any changes are sensible or not. A change to a thread title may well be sensible. If it is sensible - the originator (when or if consulted) will probably willingly agree.

The issue is simply one of showing respect and being polite to those who Max has invited to contribute. I suggest that it is those unknown volunteers who feel that imposing such changes - as a matter of urgency (and without first consulting the originator) - are the ones who need to get a life and join the real world...........

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Sliding Down The Bannister At My Auntie's House
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:39 PM

I agree with you Mr Shambles.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:52 PM

Myself I'd sooner see the name of the country instead - ie England, or whatever.

But it seems a sensible innovation to me. I'm sure the net effect will to avoid irritation rather than to cause it, Mr Growser, Sir. ("It ought not to be allowed!")

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:11 PM

Well said Shambles. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:38 PM

If the change is helpful to other Mudcat users I can't see the problem. Why would a minor change in the title worry any sensible person?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:43 PM

It's fairly common to ADD to a title if it helps to clarify. People on dial-up, at work, etc., often don't have a lot of time to "surf", so a quick scan of the titles helps them as to which threads they'd like to open.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:45 PM

Much ado about nothing.

A tempest in a teapot.

Etc.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 02:57 PM

Why would a minor change in the title worry any sensible person?

That is rather my point - I think. If the intended change is first thought to be so minor - why impose it and run any risk of upsetting anyone? And why needlessly judge them - as sensible or not? Are not all posters are entitled to their (moderately expressed) view?

But to go off the main point - which is setting the example of simple good manners and being seen to be friendly. I do have a problem with bringing attention online (where this is not anything to do with the point of the post) to poster's ethnic origins - nationality - sexual preferences - religion - politics or any thing else that may divide us.

It is the love of music that has brought all the contributors to this public forum together and this universal language can transcend most of our differences - if we allow it to.

Yes it might sometimes be useful to know from a thread title - what the originator's country of origin was or where the thread deals with a particular country - but most times it is not. I see a risk that in automatically imposing these type of changes to thread titles - that we will get (even further and needlessly) divided along national lines instead of learning from our national differences.

Is it really worth the risk upsetting any poster by imposing any change to the thread title - that they have carefully chosen - without asking them first?

For some reason that i can't see - you may well think that it is worth this risk. I suggest that even if one other poster did not think it was worth taking this risk - that it would be better to oblige them and would do little real harm to anyone else - to do this.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:07 PM

If anyone's posting info about events, yes it does make sense to specify which country the event is in because of the duplication of place names in UK, US, and the Antipodes. People have quite often said that they'd gone to a thread and then realised that the event described wasn't on the same continent.

Kitty

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:08 PM

Ask yourself - is it worth the risk of upsetting the owner of the site by nitpicking editorial changes that NO ONE OTHER THEN YOURSELF has complained about -

or if they have - have done it by the requested method - privately to the designated persons.

For someone who professes to be concerned about politiness and good manners you exhibit a decided lack of both. repeatedly. frequently.

On the other hand multiple people have complained about ambigously titled threads that when opened prove to be specific to either the US or the UK.

furthermore - you have absolutely no proof that the title was "carefully chosen".

Nor are such changes "automatically imposed" - and as has been repeatedly mentioned - any such change is subject to review and can be corrected if necessary.

YOu are quick enough to complain and rail against personal judgement being made in editorial changes. Have you "looked in the mirror" lately? You are certainly attempting to force your own personal judgement on the management and general populace of this site.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM

So - because a thread is 'labelled' UK or USA that would stop you opening it, Why?

Who says that a thread title is carefully chosen? Not every time.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:31 PM

If anyone's posting info about events, yes it does make sense to specify which country the event is in because of the duplication of place names in UK, US, and the Antipodes. People have quite often said that they'd gone to a thread and then realised that the event described wasn't on the same continent.

I agree that there are times when such a change may indeed make sense - and if it makes sense to the originator - they will probably specify the county in the title they choose. And if they don't - and a change is suggested to them - they will probably agree to such a proposal.

All I am suggesting is that to place this in a thread title or not - should be left to the originator.

For why should any change be automatically imposed by some anonymous fellow poster without the originator's knowledge or permission?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:37 PM

because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:50 PM

Am I being overly picky here? (perish the thought)
But could one assume that a thread originally titled "RE: In the UK.....?" making points about editorial policy may well miss its intended audience. Always assuming that the title will prevent 'transpondians' from reading it!


Nigel (in Wales, which most Americans believe is part of England! :P))

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:54 PM

Some things matter a lot. Some things don't matter very much. Some things don't matter a damn.

I'd put this "issue" in column three. Ore column four if there was one...

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:58 PM

because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site.

No. I do not honestly believe that it is.

Reserving the right to do something - should never be thought or changed to be the same thing as imposing it upon all posters without their prior knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine.

There may well be times when it is thought to quickly remove offensive postings - many posters would support action such as this and have little sympathy with the originator.

It has never be the Mudcat way to treat all contributors with such little consideration. I hope that it never will be.

This is a simple request and one that is made in moderate language. I hope and trust that it will be discussed and considered.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM

Oh Shambles....geez. Give over. I personally prefer to KNOW if something is in the UK instead of US or Outer Mongolia....what difference can it possibly make????

No wonder Joe is in Bulgaria.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM

because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site.

No. I do not honestly believe that it is.

well - correct - in that you insist on adding "automaticaly" whenever you refer to editing - and it is not in any way an automatic procedure - as has repeatedly been explained to you.

But Max has granted the ability to change titles, delete posts, close threads to a number of people HE HAS CHOSEN to represent him and to perform such functions. He has established a review procedure. AND HE CAN WITHDRAW THOSE ABILITIES AT ANY TIME HE PLEASES.

Therefore - one has to assume that those people currently utilizing such abilities are NOT performing beyond the boundaries Max has set.

italics corrected without previously contacting poster - joeclone

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:19 PM

But could one assume that a thread originally titled "RE: In the UK.....?" making points about editorial policy may well miss its intended audience.

Perhaps the originator thought that no matter how much care they took and whatever thread title they settled on - it would be judged as wanting and a change to it would be automatically imposed anyway - without their knowledge or permission?   

Perhaps ALL thread titles should be left to our unknown volunteers - who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon us lesser posters?

Perhaps this unknown number of special but anonymous posters should be thought to be the only ones qualified enough to post anything?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:22 PM

Perhaps the originator thought that no matter how much care they took and whatever thread title they settled on - it would be judged as wanting and a change to it would be automatically imposed anyway - without their knowledge or permission?

CRAP!

That statement is pure troll-bait! (As are many of your postings recently)

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:53 PM

This is a simple request and one that is made in moderate language. I hope and trust that it will be discussed and considered.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:51 PM

Let's see now...I have a product I want to market. My market is one particular area only. For sure, in my adverts, I would NOT want to be too exclusive, so that all may have the benefit from reading my cleverness, so I would definitely leave OUT the location.

I think we all need to enroll in SA - Shambles Anonymous - to get over our addiction of responding to his drivel. He'd much rather read his own words than take into consideration ANYTHING anyone else opines.

kat

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:46 PM

The issue is ....

Shambles-- people seem to agree, that (location clarity) IS the issue.

~S~

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:09 PM

Oh, NOW I see.... It's a thread Shambles started, so once again he's veiling his personal upset as a crusade for free speech-- he's reacting like a hurt child, because no one asked HIM. He's generalizing his upset to a host of non-posting, non-commenting people who he would like to think agree with him.

Shambles, we ARE discussing-- I suppose now you want to control THAT, too.

~Susan

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:13 PM

And PS-- in the US my husband is a minister, and like most ministers I know, he's always thought jamming was OK. But these ministers have got nothing to do with PELs. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:30 PM

Thre's some good music in Weymouth I've heard, and in Dorset generally..

Welcome to Weymouth, Massachussets

Weymouth Township, New Jersey

Or in Australia"

Then there's Dorset in Ohio, in Vermont and Minnesota, and of course the Dorset Vale in Australia...

Where was that session then?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: IvanB
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM

When I saw the original title, I immediately (in my provincial thinking) figured some Southern Baptist minister had finally seen the light. Boy, was I wrong!

Shambles, consulting with the thread's originator might be a fine idea in theory, but I'm not sure the concept's worth getting very excited about. The originator might not be immediately available for consultation, then must the whole board waste their time because a thread title hasn't been clarified.

Although I share your concern regarding the PEL business, I doubt that all Mudcatters do, and there's no reason to "lure" the uninterested in with a less than clear thread title.

The clones work hard for us trying to make this site a more pleasant place to be and, frankly, my hat's off to them for the guff they have to take with far too few thanks from any of us. I sure wouldn't want the job.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:37 PM

I have to agree with Shambles on this. If someone originates a thread what right does someone else have to change the title?

Unless the thread is offensive then it should stay as it is. So if YOU have the ability to edit threads then keep your bloody maulers off unless the thread is a personal attack, a threat, or is offensive.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:14 PM

IT WASN'T CHANGED!!! It was ADDED to for clarity!

Key-riced on a crutch! Thank gawd nobody bitches when someone adds BS. In fact, folks are quick to point out when a non-music thread winds up "up top" and needs redesignation. Or, gawd forbid if someone makes a mistake, i.e. OBIT, when it should be something else, or gets a date wrong in the title, etc., a clone goes in, sees it and kindly corrects it.

Do you have ANY appreciation for this site, at all, Shambles? If so, why not start a thread about that?!

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:25 PM

Kat - There are some people in this world who only seem to exist to bitch and moan. I think that we have the perfect example here.

As far as I am aware no-one who has had a thread title changed has complained about the fact and some have probably been grateful to the clones for doing it.

The Shambles has his own convoluted agenda here and seems to think that he should be able to call the shots on someone elase's web site. Taking into consideration that Max and VOLUNTEERS keep this thing running on a wing and a prayer IMHO his attitude stinks.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:35 PM

Then why not start a UK prefix just like the BS one. Then we can have a filter so that we don't have to read about them dumb Limeys. Keep them over on their side of the pond.

No, we see many threads that could be from here or there but no one goes changing them (or adding to them). Now just where was that bell clapper? - for instance.

It would be really sad to see the Mudcat divided on us and them lines. There always has been a little confusion when reading a new thread as to know where it originated, but does adding UK to just ONE thread really help?

We have managed fine for years and have asked for locations when necessary.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 01:52 AM

While this is somewhat tangential to the main point of this thread, I was struck by a comment that Shambles made in in his 22 Jul 05 - 02:57 PM post:

"I do have a problem with bringing attention online (where this is not anything to do with the point of the post) to poster's ethnic origins - nationality - sexual preferences - religion - politics or any thing else that may divide us. It is the love of music that has brought all the contributors to this public forum together and this universal language can transcend most of our differences - if we allow it to."

-snip-

Surprise, surprise! I don't agree with the statement that persons posting comments on the Internet should always {or even usually}refrain from mentioning their race/ethnicity, nationality, gender,religion, and/or age. I certainly believe that there are times when such information is irrelevant. But there are other times when those demographics adds context, depth, and another perspective to the discussion.

See this article on Race in Cyperspace

Among other comments, the researcher posits that "White male" is the default descriptor for folks posting on the Internet-meaning that people's first assumption is that the person posting online is a White male, probably because the majority of bloggers are White males.

I'm raising this issue not for the purpose of diverting the conversation from Shamble's main point about titles of threads being changed titles without the originator's permissions, but because I feel that his point about sharing demographics is {also?} worthy of discussion.

Peace,


Ms. Azizi

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:13 AM

LTS... which Portland?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:25 AM

I too prefer to see the "UK" or "US" or AUS" or whatever prefix, it helps. Where the originator has omitted to include sich a prefix, I find it sensible for the editorial team to add it instead. Whether they do so with the express permission of the originator, it matters not to me, in this case.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:31 AM

Exactly gnu. There are certain threads, discussing upcoming events, that would benefit from a location guide. If the original poster has neglected (as I did on one occasion) to add that bit of information than it is handy if a helpful clone provides it.

I haven't seen any evidence that titles are being changed willy-nilly just to show the origin of the original poster. From what I have seen the clones are being HELPFUL!

And, basically, if you don't like the way the site runs, don't come here. It works for the vast majority of us.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:23 AM

I had a PM a while back asking why I am constantly starting a story with, "Up in Kent County, New Brunswick, Canada....". It's just polite, not arrogant as the PM implied. And, it saves me answering posts and PM's asking me where I am to, too.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:35 AM

Those of you who have not had your thread titles changed by anonymous volunteers without your knowledge or permission may think this imposed action by out anonymous volunteers to be helpful. You are welcome to express that view. Those posters to whom it matters enough to post - but to say only that it matters little to them - are perhaps wasting their post or are not being very honest or very considerate to their fellow posters.

As one who has suffered from this action on many occasions - I do not think that it is helpful to me or to our forum. Many posters do not seem to think that I am welcome to express that view. It is interesting that no one yet has responded to Bert - another long-term poster who is also considers that thread titles should be left to the originator and that permssion should be first sought for any changes - and is brave enough to post and say so.

Whether the proposed change is helpful or not - I suggest is a matter only for the anonymous volunteer proposing the change and the originator. Why is it so difficult for the originator always to be asked first by the anonymous volunteer - to be guided by the response or to leave the title as post - for the lack of a response?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:39 AM

The sensibilities of the single person, the thread originator, matter to me less than the sensibilities of a large majority, the readers of uninformative thread titles.

I prefer uninformative thread titles being made more informative immediately when spotted. Quick action of the Mudcat helpers has saved me a lot of time already.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:55 AM

When I saw the original title, I immediately (in my provincial thinking) figured some Southern Baptist minister had finally seen the light. Boy, was I wrong!

Ivan - you must have been very quick indeed to see the original title. The title change by one of our unkown number of anonymous volunteers was imposed almost instantly. But your point is taken.

Although I share your concern regarding the PEL business, I doubt that all Mudcatters do, and there's no reason to "lure" the uninterested in with a less than clear thread title.

There are no grounds for this suspicion. The suggestion that there was any attempt by me to lure anyone (by the ommission of UK) has no foundation. I gave the title a lot of thought and was happy with it - but not with any intention of misleading anyone - for what would be the point of this?

There is no way that a thread title (given the limited space available to lesser posters) can ever be always clear to everyone or meet agreement from everybody. No more than the thread's contents will ever meet with agreement from everyone. But part of the fun (especially for B/S threads) is the imaginitive titles that folk think up. For that reason alone - I would suggest that all titles are left to the originator and only changed with their agreement.

I await to see any sound reason given here so far - as to why it is really so desirable for anonymous volunteers - now as a matter of routine - to impose any change at any time to a thread title - without first obtaining the originator's permission.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:13 AM

Surprise, surprise! I don't agree with the statement that persons posting comments on the Internet should always {or even usually}refrain from mentioning their race/ethnicity, nationality, gender,religion, and/or age. I certainly believe that there are times when such information is irrelevant. But there are other times when those demographics adds context, depth, and another perspective to the discussion.

That is exactly why I contend that - the choice to place such (incidental) information or not - should always be left to the thread's originator. Do you agree?

Do you think that there is any reason why not respecting this convention and imposing a anonymous volunteer's wishes upon the originator's thead title - is really necessary or desirable on our forum?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM

I responded to bert right after his last post, Shambles. And, will again.

Bertdarlin'...you know me better than to think I would NOT open a thread just because it had "UK" in the title. I've lots of friends over and from there and have no prejudice when it comes to the reading of their "doings." I know I am not alone in that enjoyment, regardless of thread title! (Nice to see you posting more!)

As Wolfgang and others have said, it saves time and confusion to have a location noted in the title. How about we leave off any location in all of the gig threads; or someone's "travelling to" thread? How nice is it for a newcomer to come in, see their own region in a thread title...exciting and encouraging, imo.

Jacqui, I think you are right!

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM

It appears that there was a particular thread title change that got Shambles goat, last straw so to speak. So what was it?

From what he wrote I took it he was objecting on principle to the addition of a place indicator to threads about events, to indicate what part of the world they are hap-pening. That seems to me a very sensible thing to have done, and if ever it happens to some thread that I've started I'll be grateful. It very likely has. I'd call it a service rather than an imposition. Complaining about it strikes me as way over the top, and in fact ungrateful, and I took it that was what was being objected to.

However when it comes to changing other thread titles for other reasons, I think that needs to be done with tact and circumspection, and only where there are very good reasons for it. That's not so much because there is a need to get the consent of the person who happens to have launched a thread - I don't accept the idea that somehow starting a thread gives one any kind of property rights in it - but out of consideration for other people who might be following it, or who might want to find it again some time in the future. Changing titles can make it harder to keep in touch with a thread, especially when there are Mudcat outages to live with.

So complaining about those kind of changes, if they have been done clumsily or inappropriately, might be a reasonable thing to do. It doesn't seem to me thatthey have been, but maybe I've not been reading the right threads.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:42 AM

As one who has suffered from this action on many occasions

"suffered??!!" Ever heard of the expression "drama queen?"

I, too, saw the original title and thought it was probably about some fundementalist preacher in the US who had finally allowed less sedate music in church.

Clones do not go around changing thread titles, willy-nilly. They change them when requested by the originator. They DO ADD to them when it seems to be HELPFUL.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:51 AM

It is my opinion that ANY change to any contribution when there is no question of it being offensive - imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission by anonymous volunteer, fellow posters - is a form of needless routine censorship that has no place on the public forum that I and many other long-term posters have been contributing to for many years. Many of these posters are still under the impression that this is a unmoderated forum......   

Examples of thread changes.

Minister say jamming is OK

Camilla and Charlie were lovers

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:24 AM

I prefer uninformative thread titles being made more informative immediately when spotted.

It is your preference that other poster's preferences are ignored and subject to needless impostion by anonymous fellow posters - without the originator's knowledge or permission.

It is my preference that the originator's preferences are respected and not ignored (as now) - as a matter of routine. As it should be recognised that the only contributions we have (or should have ) any control over - are our own.

But other posters can post to agree or disagree with our preferences - as we (and others) are prepared to use our names to express and publicly stand by those preferences.

But the only preferences that are sadly and rapidly beginning to matter on our forum (and which are often mow defended by them and their supportes - with insults and accusations) - are those preferences of unknown numbers our anonymous volunteer fellow posters. Whose number and identity are intentionally withheld.

Perhaps it is time for a re-think?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:26 AM

Azizi, I agree with you completely. Too many people think that any mention of a characteristic, whether it's sex, race, country of origin or habitation, religion, etc, and there has to be some type of discrimination involved.

My guess is that some people are incapable of, or too lazy to understand and judge what's being said based on content, so they scan for 'trigger' words or phrases.

I KNOW they think I'm a white male, based on the amount of spam I recieved aimed at making my groinal appendage either longer or harder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bert, '(UK)' and '(US)' have been added to titles for clarification for as long as I've been here. As the musical center of my local universe is in Portsmouth (U?), these additions may be more a matter of routine to me than others. I understand if you've noticed them now for the first time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If9you9want9to play<with9Roger,<it's<OK. <I believe he started this thread because<1) he had a typically lame excuse<to revive<the anti-admin crusade, and 2)<he thought enough time had passed so<the subject would seem fresh and attractive once>again.

As far as I can tell from following these threads over the years, the main<purpose seems9to be>to provide Shambles a<platform from which he can argue a point no one can quite understand towards a<goal that doesn't exist with people that mistakenly believe (at least until they>clue<in) they can9find common ground9with him.