This thread is a study in itself: it's almost Mudcat in a microcosm... intellectual curiosity; insider resistance to inquiry out of the "norm"; rampant scatalogical rowdiness...
~ Becky in Tucson


I agree with what Becky said. I would also include witty plays on words {for instance, Foolestroupe's post "You mean we khantdu without him?"}.

I like that kind of wit. However, I'm wondering why it is that those who are opposed to an analytical discussion of the ways that Mudcat posters in general interact on the public forum wouldn't just disregard this thread and leave it to those who were/are serious about such a discussion. I'm curious why folks would do this.

Regardless of the reasons why posters decided to railroad this subject, to paraphrase Becky's comment, the way this thread has developed shows how some folks communicate when they don't like what some other folks want to talk about.

I think that's too bad {with "bad" here meaning "not good"}.