From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?

Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party?