 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Miscellaneous Iraq- Feb 2003
|
|
|
Subject: BS: It's about regime change, not WMD From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 02:16 PM Interesting article here, from AlterNet, that some might be interested in reading: "The Inspections Flap: Both Sides Are Wrong" article -Joe Offer- If you wish to reply to a message in a thread, please do not start a new thread to do it. |
|
Subject: BS: The AlterNet Movie Awards From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 02:28 PM The Alties! Vote here, beginning February 14th! Vote for Alties-Vox Populi Movie Awards! -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: BS: OK, it's about liberating Muslim women From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:55 PM So the Dixie Chicks can sing free. It says so right here -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: BS: Vonnegut Interview @ AlterNet From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:22 PM Loathe and ignore me, as the hawkish wing of Mudcat keeps suggesting you do, if you absolutely must. But for those of you who aren't obsessed with identity issues at Mudcat, I offer this information I'd like to offer to you. Especially if you are a fan of Vonnegut, but even if you aren't, you might just want to read what one of the best American writers has to say at his young 80 years of age, here: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15098 -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vonnegut Interview @ AlterNet From: GUEST,The Hated Guest Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:37 PM That said, do you have any ideas for a really scary reality TV show? "C students from Yale." It would stand your hair on end. What targets would you consider fair game for a satirist today? Assholes. (Thanks, Guest.) -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OK, it's about liberating Muslim women From: Lepus Rex Date: 11 Feb 03 - 08:03 PM He IS a genius... ---Lepus Rex -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vonnegut Interview @ AlterNet From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:25 PM Now if you'd stick with that handle, that'd avoid a lot of hassle. Then I wouldn't scroll past your posts, and mix them up with some of the creeps who post as GUEST without a handle. Thanks for that link. That's a good piece. Great writer, and talks sense too. (Which doesn't always follow.) -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: beadie Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:36 PM With respect to the President: Respect those who seek the truth . . . . . fear those who find it. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:08 PM What are you so afraid of, Joe? A link to a story about the war build up is frivolous? A link to an interview with Kurt Vonnegut is frivolous? And if they were frivolous, why not just let the threads die? Why did you feel compelled to draw attention to them by consolidating them, and giving your self-justification mantra with each one? I just shake my head at the fear, paranoia, and lack of grace around this place. Glad you fixed it all up now Joe. This really makes a difference. To you, apparently. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:24 PM I checked your record, my friend. It seems that you post very seldom to music threads in this music forum, but you have posted countless "BS" messages - and started one hell of a lot of threads. You're free to join in the discussion, but there's no need for you to start a new thread every time you have half an idea. Try to add to existing discussions, rather than starting so many new threads. Otherwise, we'll have to put restrictions on non-member thread origination. I start maybe one thread a week, if that. Why do you feel compelled to start so many, when there were already existing discussions on the topics? There are a few people who seem almost compulsive about starting threads. I think it's caused by a craving for attention and an inability to participate in normal, two-way communication. I think you seem to be one of those people. Ease off a bit. Nobody's trying to silence you, but it does appear that you are abusing your thread-creation privileges. Please try to fit the vast majority of your posts into existing discussions. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:25 PM Saddest part of all of this though Joe, is maybe you've never heard of Kurt Vonnegut. I know for a fact there are quite a few Mudcatters who have, and who would really enjoy getting a chance to read the interview with him I posted a link to--frivolously. And now, thanks to Joe the Mudcat censor, that interview has been deemed unfit, unworthy, and too frivolous for the Mudcat membership to find out about. Does putting me in my place make you feel like a big, powerful man Joe? I hope so. Because this kind of petty censorship doesn't make you stand very tall among reasonable men. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:42 PM Yes, I've read a number of Vonnegut's novels, and liked them very much. The messages are certainly appropriate, and please take note that I did not delete them. Next time, try to fit your comments and links into existing discussions. The four threads you started actually didn't have much in the way of comment anyhow - you just gave us four links, one per thread, with almost no commentary whatsoever. That's almost as bad as the copy-pasting of lengthy articles that are available elsewhere on the Internet. Thanks for nothing. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:46 PM Forgot to say "in my opinion" there Joe. But of course, your opinions carry more weight around here because you have power, and in this instance, you've certainly proved you know how to abuse it. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:06 PM Sorry I got you angry - that wasn't my purpose. Take a minute and think about how you might find a way to contribute to communication here without littering the Forum Menu with new threads. The Vonnegut link is indeed interesting, and it may be the one thread of the four you started today that doesn't fit into existing discussions. However, there is a generally-accepted procedure here for starting threads. First of all, you don't start a thread unless you have a topic that isn't being discussed (and it's preferable most of the time to add to old threads if they're not current). That's the case with Vonnegut, so it's OK to start a thread. You say that you came across an interesting Kurt Vonnegut interview, and then you give a link, and a brief summary of the article in your own words. Then you express your own opinion of the interview, and maybe express some questions it raised in your mind. Then you might ask a few questions that might stimulate discussion. You don't just start a thread, post a link and say "discuss." Well...you did - four times today. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: black walnut Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:35 AM "Otherwise, we'll have to put restrictions on non-member thread origination." I'm wondering what the down side of that would be. Thanks Joe for doing what you do. ~b.w. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Nigel Parsons Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:43 AM b.w.: the downside would be the loss of opportunity for 'guests' to seek assistance here; Lyrics required...etc., As guests they will not know their way around the site, and the members are always ready to lend a helping hand. I would be sorry to see that openness go Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:49 AM There is no problem with that, I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with not being able to start a thread as a guest. But then, what about the proliferation of member originated threads Joe doesn't like? PEL threads, political threads, prayer threads, and other subjects starting with a "P" that Joe has an aversion to, would also be good candidates. Then there are posters Joe personally doesn't like, WYSIWYG--he was pretty successful in shutting her down on the religious and prayer issues already. Now he can go after Bobert for his politics (probably because he too is a spiritual man). See where it all leads people? Now, I would have no problem with banning all non-music threads, and with making Mudcat membership only, which would mean a moderated forum. But anything beyond that, anything that isn't a personal attack IS CENSORSHIP and Joe Offer IS THE CENSOR. What he does is subjective, arbitrary, and often petty and vindictive (some of us can see through his justifications). But right now, what you have is a petty tyrant messing with people posting about stuff Joe doesn't like. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:58 AM PS--I understand for many here, they have nothing online to compare this forum to, moderated or unmoderated. I have been on a handful of mailing lists for over 10 years, none of them moderated. All of them often discuss politics, religion, etc. and the debates get pretty heated. Of the 3 unmoderated lists I am a member of, the number of times list owner/maintainers have intervened with "problem postings/posters" I can count on one hand. Joe Offer, by comparison, is CONSTANTLY intervening where he has no business intervening, and that does build resentment over time, which in turn makes the forum even more difficult to manage. That is it for me. There is nothing that can be done to reign Joe in. I know it, he knows it, and that is a standoff, so it would be pointless for me to waste any more time on it. The rest of you want to stone me, have at it. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:34 AM Quitcher whining. A |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: katlaughing Date: 12 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM Thanks, Joe. GUEST: good riddance. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 03 - 09:58 AM That is it for me. Meaning goodbye? Ot just moving to another thread? |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: jimmyt Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:08 AM Joe, Seems we would be better off if you limited guest threads to lyrics only. I don't think there would be a sense of loss rising up in the mudcat community if you eliminated this kind of thing. That way, as Nigel says, Guests could access information as needed regarding music, and if they choose to join, they would then have all the access that goes with membership. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: katlaughing Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:37 AM I agree, jimmyt, that would be a good solution. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Lepus Rex Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:48 AM The same messages posted by the GUEST in this thread would probably not have been treated this way if they had been posted by a member. And a member would get more respect for espousing the very same views as our GUEST here. On almost every non-musical (and even some that are musical) thread started by a GUEST, regardless of quality, some jackass member will either say something like "TROLL ALERT!!!", or go nuts and start making weird, paranoid accusations that they KNOW who the GUEST is, and they're not going to take it anymore, dammit. And then a bunch more will predictably join in against the GUEST, as has happened on this thread, blah blah blah. What the fuck? Why do you people care who's writing? Why not judge the thread on its merits, rather than its originator? What exactly is it that bothers you people so much about the various GUESTS' anonymity? "Uh, they take no responsibility for their words! At least a member signs his/her NAME!" ----You Well, some do. Most members have dumbass nicknames, though, such as katlaughing, black walnut, beadie, and Lepus Rex. And even us dumbass-nicknamed members get more respect than a GUEST. I doubt more than two or three Mudcatters know/remember my real name, and if you did, it probably wouldn't mean anything to you. So why should my dopey posts as a MEMBER be given more respect that a GUEST's, who's name no-one knows? Grr. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: katlaughing Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM By its very nature, anonymous postings lose any right to claim anything personal, positive or negative, against them or for them. Post anonymously and ya take yer chances. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,Pat Cooksey. Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM Seems a pity to stop guests posting, I post as a guest because my computer has a problem with cookies, perhaps if guest posts were accompanied by contact details the malicious ones would stop posting, starting threads, etc. I can be easily contacted via my website. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: JennyO Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM I first checked out Mudcat 3 months ago when I got a computer, after my friend Sandra from Sydney suggested it. My first thought was to look up music, then I started checking out some of the threads that looked like fun. I posted as a guest for a couple of weeks, quite often on the BS threads, and was delighted to get feedback from various people, some positive, and a few not so positive. I just thought it was really cool to be having conversations with other like-minded people on the other side of the world. I was a bit nervous about membership at first because of the idea of giving personal information and that sort of thing. What persuaded me to join was partly Sandra's urging, but mostly the mudcatters I had been sharing ideas with - I felt I was getting to know some of them a little bit. The idea of being able to send and receive PM's was attractive, for one thing. What finally made me do it was something Daylia said on a BS thread, about wanting to join but being a bit nervous. We encouraged each other to join and actually ended up joining on the same day, only a few hours apart. The point is that if I had been restricted to lyrics only threads, I probably would never have joined. I don't think I would have experienced the mudcat community in quite the same way. I know there are certain individuals who flood the forum with rants and inflammatory statements, and it would be all too easy to further promote the perceived division between members and guests by restricting the access for guests. Speaking just for me, I WOULD feel a sense of loss if this were to happen. BTW, not all offenders are guests, and not all guests are offenders. I just don't like the idea of us heading in the direction of becoming an exclusive club. I think there is room for all of us. Sometimes I even enjoy the verbal jousting that goes on here. It adds to the colour. As has been said by others, those who don't want to read those threads don't have to click on them. That's my 2 cents worth. Jenny |
|
Subject: Anonymous Guests From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Feb 03 - 04:37 PM Sometimes, I wonder if people will ever understand the psychology of this issue. I think it's fair to say that censorship is very rare here. We almost never delete posts from registered members, because social pressure makes the registered Mudcatters behave fairly well. Take Bobert for example. He started a thread that didn't make any sense ot me, and I posted a reply that said so. Other people posted responses that said they liked or didn't like what I said, and the matter moved on, controlled by social pressure and the Forum of Public Opinion. His behavior and mine are both controlled somewhat by social pressure, so we tend to behave in a reasonably civil manner. Our anonymous Guests are a different matter, however. By their anonymity, they have attempted to make themselves immune from social pressure and public opinion. They enjoy saying whatever they like without taking responsibility for it. Pene and Max and I generally know who they are, but nobody else does. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure their civil behavior by the normal means of social interaction. We also have very little problem from unregistered people who identify themselves consistently. They may not be registered, but they take responsibility for their words by using their name or a consistent nickname. Their posts are seldom deleted (with one notable exception, a certain teacher from the Los Angeles area who believes he has a sacred obligation to harass people and make them miserable). So, the problem is with guests who use no name or a variety of names. An obvious solution would be to control them or to bar them completely. We don't want to do that, because it's a lot of work for us, and it has the effect of inhibiting the freedom of discussion of the entire Forum. I guess I can say with some certainty that we do not intend to require people to register before they can post messages. However, if we continue to have problems with obnoxious guests, we may screen new threads and maybe messages submitted by guests, so there might be a delay of an hour or so before their messages get posted. We screen all submissions to our Links page like that now, because we had too many duplicate links posted. I would like to notify our anonymous Guests that their posts are subject to greater scrutiny than those from people who identify themselves. I'd also like to say that if problems continue, we will have to do something to control them. I receive a lot of complaints about the conduct of our anonymous friends, and I feel obliged to respond to those complaints. If you anonymous Guests feel persecuted, tough luck. The general opinion is that people who post here should identify themselves in some consistent manner, even if they don't register. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous Guests From: Big Mick Date: 12 Feb 03 - 04:42 PM I am right there with you, Joe. There was a time I would not have said this, but I think that at this stage of The Mudcat's life, it is time. The GUESTS have gotten to the point of being more interested in disrupting the place; and more interested in manipulating folks through inflammatory posts so they can get their jollies, than they are in the general discussion. Heated debate is not only fine, but it is desired. The types of things I have seen lately don't even belong on the same page as a decent debate on an issue. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: harpgirl Date: 12 Feb 03 - 04:50 PM ...thanks, Joe. I dislike censorship, but I dislike our antisocial GUEST wayyyyyyyy more! |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Lepus Rex Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM "By their anonymity, they have attempted to make themselves immune from social pressure and public opinion. They enjoy saying whatever they like without taking responsibility for it...We also have very little problem from unregistered people who identify themselves consistently. They may not be registered, but they take responsibility for their words by using their name or a consistent nickname." ---Joe But what's the difference if they're posting anon., or just registering with a meaningless nickname to post the exact same material? There is no real difference. They're still anonymous. Apparently, it makes some members uneasy to talk to an anon. GUEST, but isn't that sort of their problem? Discriminating against GUESTs because a few unhinged members complain is bullshit. Read todays threads, and you'll see more praise than criticism for our "faceless" GUESTs. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: katlaughing Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:16 PM To those who express concerns about GUESTs not being able to post, re-read Joe's words. As I understand it, he was talking about limiting GUESTs' abilities to start threads only; i.e. make it so that a GUEST who does not add a consistent nickname of some sort, could not start a new thread, unless it was under the music category and actually had to do with music. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:28 PM The vast majority of forums (fora?) I've encountered on the internet allow you lurk and read to your heart's content, but if you want to post or start a thread, you have to register. Mudcat doesn't do that (so far), which has certain advantages to those occasional visitors who might have a serious question to ask or a serious contribution to make. But when a visitor spends more time on the forum and starts more threads than the registered folks do, well, that could be okay, too. Provided the threads have some genuine merit consistent with the website as a whole. But when the visitor clutters up the bandwidth with frivolous or malicious threads, that's called "abusing the privilege" And make no mistake, it is a pivilege to be able to participate in what Mudcat has to offer. So far, Mudcat has been pretty open. Perhaps it's time to draw the line. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,Newbie Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:43 PM I'm very new around here, but like your abusive GUEST, am a long-time member of lots of other discussions - moderated and not. I think "troll alert" *would* be a pretty good response to his/her earlier postings. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,The Hated Guest Date: 12 Feb 03 - 06:18 PM The only problem I see, Joe Offer, with selective censorship is that you give up First Amendment protections. When the new Gestapo starts nosing around, as you know they will someday, you can say 'First Amendment...freedom of speech...etc.'...IF you haven't selectively edited out bits and pieces. But if you've censored and edited for content, the new Gestapo will demand to know why you let a post like THIS ONE stand. See what I mean? I'd quit posting my political stuff here in order to make your plight easier, but would it make any difference? Song lyrics are often political. When the First Amendment goes, we all do. So I admire y'all's tolerance and fortitude. And thanks for letting me speak my piece(s). I've self-applied a handle for future reference, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Cluin Date: 12 Feb 03 - 06:52 PM Quit whining. I don't see what Joe did as censorship in the slightest. He just consolidated posts from several threads into one thread, which he does for music-related posts all the time. That's what he does around here and he deserves a pat on the back for it. Check into a few of those threads, if you give a shit about the music-related stuff around here at all, and you'll see many examples of it. Good thing too. Good threads get buried fast enough without several "miscellaneous" threads existing. This miscellaneous thread is a good one for posting stuff like: Did you know that "The Upper Canada District School Board has removed the word gun from all spelling tests in its schools as a result of a complaint by parents of a Grade 1 student." Isn't that just plain stupid? See: An articleon it. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,The Hated Guest Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:06 PM Even if you don't know what I'm talking about, I imagine he does. When you engage in ANY editorial activity, you open yourself up to future criticism. And the people demanding answers in the future won't be easy to placate. And speaking of whining...take your article. What are you going to do about it? You need to get the word 'gun' re-inserted, or next year the world 'mother' will be removed. Then 'freedom', etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Cluin Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:09 PM Well, maybe I'll just do my bit and start a whole bunch of different threads here then. That'll save the world, yeah. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Gareth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:15 PM Joe - for what its worth, and I don't claim to be entirely in sympathy with the Mudcat consensus on a number of issues, you have my complete support. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:15 PM GUEST,THG, here's a little civics lesson that you apparently missed in high school: A law applies to all citizens, favoring no one person over another, and permits a citizen to do whatever he or she wishes, provided it is not specifically forbidden by that law. The Constitution applies only to the government and government-supported institutions, and forbids the government and said government-supported institutions to do anything except that which is specifically permitted by the Constitution. Private citizens (and Max and Joe and Jeff are private citizens) are not bound by the Constitution. Max and Joe and Jeff are neither obliged nor obligated to provide a platform for anyone and everyone who comes along to say anything and everything he or she wishes. If they want to censor every third word in a posting, or an entire posting, or an entire thread, it is their legal and Constitutional right to do so. If they received government funding to support Mudcat, then this would not be true. But since they don't, it is. This is something that a lot of folks obviously slept through in class. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM In short, First Amendment rights do not apply here. Suck it up. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,THG Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:20 PM Look at the new PATRIOT Act, Don. What you and I are engaging in right now is terrorism. And this forum makes it possible. We can all present our cases to the Gestapo for a lesson in the 'new' civics, I guess. Get up to speed. |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Don Firth Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:35 PM Read it awhile back and been up to speed for a long time now. Read some of my former posts. What I just posted about the distinction between the law and the Constitution is basic. Especially the fact that the Constitution permits the govenment to do only that which it sets forth. This is the part that Bush and his minions are running through the shredder, so they can do whatever they damned well please, and I've been saying that here since shortly after 9/11. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: NicoleC Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:58 PM Once again, thanks Joe for doing a great job. Free speech doesn't mean somebody else has to pay for your priviledge to do so, not on a web site anymore than a newspaper is required to print articles by anyone who happens to write one. And make no mistake about it, running a web site 'taint free. I'd hate to see Guests forbidden to post at all. Like most, I started out as a guest with a strange music question and was delighted that I got a speedy answer. You've been stuck with me ever since, even if I can't answer all those fancy lyric questions :) |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Neighmond Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM Man...hang some....uh....PEOPLE.....with a new rope and they STILL snipe and grouse! I am often a big pain in the ass, too, but I try to keep my foolishness to the threads that are already there. I also sign them, so if someone has an issue they can (and do) respond. I had a point to all this but I have forgotten what it was. Perhaps some of you can see what it is-I better hang up before I REALLY swallow my foot. Chaz |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:38 PM Here's what Lepus says: But what's the difference if they're posting anon., or just registering with a meaningless nickname to post the exact same material? There is no real difference. They're still anonymous. Apparently, it makes some members uneasy to talk to an anon. GUEST, but isn't that sort of their problem? Discriminating against GUESTs because a few unhinged members complain is bullshit. Read todays threads, and you'll see more praise than criticism for our "faceless" GUESTs. Well, Lepus, whether they're registered or not, we at Mudcat Central generally know the identity of the people who post here. If they use a consistent nickname, we know it's consistent. If they are anonymous or use a variety of nicknames, we generally know that, too. If they really want to remain anonymous, they don't have to worry about their comments being deleted unless those comments are obnoxious or disruptive. So, if our anonymous guests are worried about our screening, all they have to do is choose an identity and stick with it. Is that too much to ask? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of our problems are caused by a very few people who insist on anonymity. If they squawk about having their posts scrutinized more closely, I have little sympathy for them. By the way. I'd like to dispel an assumption some people have. Some people think our troublemakers are registered Mudcatters who get rid of their cookies every once in a while so they can cause trouble anonymously. That happens, but only very rarely. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:52 PM TH, You're confusing things so hard in your own mind you think the world really is that way--bassackwards and upsy-down-turvy. Joe Offer is a decent and helpful person. His record speaks to it, and anyone who has met him knows it. He thinks hard before acting and seeks the best balance possible for the community. Study him as a model. Because electing him as a target is just, I dunno, woeful. A |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Lepus Rex Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:56 PM No, Joe, it isn't too much to ask that anon. GUESTs take a name. Honestly, I wish they would, too. But I hope you don't restrict their posting privileges should they decline to, just because of the over-reactions of a hysterical few. I really don't see a big anon. GUEST "problem" here. And I still wish you guys would make our IPs visible in our posts. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:58 PM "Study him as a model." Jeezus I sure HOPE that doesn't catch on! I mean he's decent looking and all, but............! Vincent Van Google |
|
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous BS From: GUEST,The Hated Guest Date: 12 Feb 03 - 09:03 PM Yeah, Don...I've read your posts. This is an incredible time, isn't it? You wouldn't believe this possible in America. Maybe you read this...I posted it elsewhere. An argument was put forth the other day that the Constitution, viewed as a contract, could be declared null and void once one of the parties defaulted. That's why the Bushes are trying to bankrupt America. Once the govt has no money and has to default, a new contract...Constitution...can be drawn up. One without all those annoying liberties and rights. And if that was meant for me, Amos...about targeting Joe...I'm not. I was just trying to make a simple point about... nevermind. No hostility was intended. |