 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 06 - 08:28 AM Nothing actually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Ebbie Date: 23 Dec 06 - 08:32 PM I think it tells us that Joe Offer is the head mod and is willing to take the heat for his actions. What does that tell you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Dec 06 - 12:03 AM Merry Christmas, Shambles. You light up my life.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Dec 06 - 12:56 AM Merry Christmas, Roger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Ebbie Date: 24 Dec 06 - 02:24 AM Ah, shucks. Merry Christmas, Roger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:14 AM You can then always make a special request to our 'moderators' to open the thread again. Which does rather make our 'moderators' imposing closure on them in the first place - more than a bit pointless. Unless the whole point is to make our 'moderators' feel very important? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:17 AM Roger (I have already wished you a Merry Christmas). The reference to threads being closed in this case is a reference to crudloads of fucking spam of a particularly cheap variety hitting the Mudcat. I agreed with you about some threads being allowed to remain open or some posts being allowed to stand because some clones had a beef with some posters--may they eat shit and choke on it. However, in this case, you got it wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:23 AM The reference to threads being closed in this case is a reference to crudloads of fucking spam of a particularly cheap variety hitting the Mudcat. No it wasn't. And as it was me who made the referance - perhaps I should know? Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Dec 06 - 06:59 AM Father Offer deleted that post? Right Wrong. And I am surprised that other posters who appear to be quick to correct such things have not posted to already do so. In fact the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team took far more time and trouble to first select all the posts that he judged to be on topic and placed or left) them into a thread titled 'The earth closet - the future'. This excluding posts of mine that were both on topic and also answering other points raised. The posts that he judged to be not addressing the subject of earth closets - he placed in new thread that he created and titled The earth closet - the future (closed). And after selflessly making all these unasked for efforts on our behalf - the current Chief of the Mudcat editing team then closed it. The thread only - hopefully not the future. Which is not technically deleting the thread - as if you should make a note of that thread's URL - it is possible to later read but not to refresh or contribute - when the thread falls off the bottom of the Mudcat world (otherwise referred to as the index). You can then always make a special request to our 'moderators' to open the thread again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:29 AM NO, Roger. As Joe said on the Help thread, it is due to spam of the pornographic variety. Today it hit the Lyric Add threads. The stuff is shit with hot links and all. You want that kind of site linked to via Mudcat? Jesus, Joseph and Mary. I do NOT feel like arguing with you about this, Roger. I agree with some of what you say about selective editing, and if you want the names of the clones who do that, message me. But don't present a 'freedom of speech' issue like it is only about you. In this case it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 10:39 AM Peace, Do yo have to humor him and keep arguing. Everything was quiet for 5 days. Why not just let him talk to himself? That's what he is really doing anyway because the moderators won't do what he asks and he refuses to listen to anything anyone tells him. Why not leave him to his verbal masturbation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Gervase Date: 29 Dec 06 - 10:49 AM Happy Easter, everyone. (Hah, got that in early!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Dec 06 - 02:20 PM Welcome back Pamby Baby....AND PLEASE TAKE NOTICE!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 06 - 03:49 PM Nothin' personal, Spaw, but you are a fuckin' showoff with all that fancy print and coloUr. And if I knew how, I'd have written that in size 2648.5 type with bright wisteria borders around a sequin-style lettering. Just the "fuckin' showoff" part. Happy Groundhog Day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:15 PM Aw shoot Peace.....If I KNEW how to do the wysteria thing I'd send it to you with detailed instructions so you could sing my praises in grand style!!! Actually, I dunno' why I'm doing the color and font thing......Must be the holidays...........Maybe biLL #6 will drop by here and I can drive him nuts some more! In Shambo's case, I guess I just wanted him to notice. I know we're all looking forward to how he interprets it! And so.....I bid you goodbye and may the fleas of a thousand camels bite Shambo's minature nut sack!!! Ol' SPAW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Emma B Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM there ya go Peace - I'm still searching for the sequins |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:27 PM Emma, you might check and see if any of the big Sequin Mining outfits in Nashville have anything on sale. There are several large sequin mines in the area and I know some of them sell "seconds" at a pretty good price. I wouldn't mind......just so everyone notices! Ol' SPAW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 30 Dec 06 - 07:48 AM NO, Roger. As Joe said on the Help thread, it is due to spam of the pornographic variety. No. Don't swallow this nonsense. If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is seen, in pursuit of his own personal spats, to intentionally post spam posts of the pornographic variety (for example, what is now the first post to the first version of this thread) - this fight against spam is the sham that all the other assurances, excuses and justifications posted are. They are all just given to enable our 'moderators' to do as they wish with the invited contributions of their fellow posters. With the exception of course of certain posters seen to be favoured by them, who are now encouraged to post any scatological and pornograpic references and for these to be inflicted on our forum. What is worse - examples of posts like these or automatically generated ones? I don't really give a toss if unfair treatment like this is to now be the way so-called 'moderation' is on our forum and certain posters are seen to be encouraged to post what they wish. Just as long as the pretence is not maintained that this treatment is open and fair and that its victims and those who try to post to demonstrate this and enable it to be freely discuss - are not publicy seen to be assured that it IS open and fair. Those posters who wish to be seen to be supporting online bullying are welcome (by me at least) to do so. But please don't maintain the pretence to yourself or anyone else that what is being supported is anything other than what it plainly is.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:02 AM For example. Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 21 Dec 06 - 06:44 PM Okay, lemmee think here......that means I should slam him so you can do the not read the thread post. Okay..... Shamby-Pamby what is your problem man? Every swingin' dick in the joint has prettty much told you to get bent but you can't take "Fuck You" for an answer! Let me repeat for your benefit.....FUCK YOU!.....and the horse you rode in on. Matter of fact, you need to notice that your horse was killed by the last windmill you failed to topple but a broke-dick fanook like yourself probably beats animals. Matter of fact we DID see that from you before didn't we? Why not drop this sillyass vendetta against Max? You DO relaize that it is Max you're attacking here don't you? Probably not.....what a fuckin' mook............ There.....That one included most of the aspects needed and followed generic lines. Sub a word here or there and you have a whole new post. Back atcha' Peace. Spaw --------------------------------------------------------------------- Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely. -Joe- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Now are posters really supposed to take this 'battle' against the 'pornographic variety of spam posts, seriously? It must be clear that any form of offensive post can now be seen to be publicly inflicted on our forum's posters and used as ammunition by our 'moderators' and their favoured few supporters - in their personal but publicly conducted witch-hunts, unless an until posters are seen to comply or are driven away. I just happen to still believe that our forum is set up to encourage and enable all posters to feel safe to openly post their views. If anyone else should still beleive this also - I would be grateful if they would speak up and say so - while they still have the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: JennyO Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM What is worse - examples of posts like these or automatically generated ones? Automatically generated ones of course. Now are posters really supposed to take this 'battle' against the 'pornographic variety of spam posts, seriously? Yes. Next? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: number 6 Date: 30 Dec 06 - 09:45 AM Well, well. Just to let you know Spaw I ordered my bi-focals ... damn well cost me $300 cdn ... all this so I can can read your smantzy-pantzy fonts in your posts ... could I ask you to tone down the colour ... I couldn't afford the xtra $80 for the tint job. :) biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: JennyO Date: 30 Dec 06 - 10:27 AM Here ya go - sequins and wisteria all in one! - it's called "SULLIVAN WISTERIA" and it's supposed to have sequins on it - I'll take their word for it but I can't see 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 12:24 PM "I just happen to still believe that our forum is set up to encourage and enable all posters to feel safe to openly post their views." yep...and catspaw has done that ...*grin*...more than once. Just as you, Roger, openly post YOUR views. or, is it that catspaw should NOT feel safe to post his views? Do I detect a logical conflict here? *contemplating*...Perhaps Shambles should be encouraged not to open and/or read threads & posts that upset him. But how, I ask myself, could this be done if he does not open them? Oh, I despair of finding a path thru all these thorny questions! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Jeri Date: 30 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM I'd just as soon the porn spammers aren't allowed to post their views. Espescially not the 'cum shots'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:21 PM (well, not unless their aim has improved!) ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:31 PM OK, this is getting very confusing. I thought wisteria and sequin were coloUrs, specifically off-green and reddish, respectively. Spaw and his friggin' fonts . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:44 PM naawwww,,,Mauve, Puce, Ochre, and Chartreuse are colOrs...."sequin" is what happens after..."wisteria" is when you feel sad and frantic at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:03 PM Sequins G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:13 PM if you've seen one sequin, you've seen 'em all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST,gleaner Date: 30 Dec 06 - 11:10 PM There's too much acrimony and intrigue on this web site for me. Goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM yep...and catspaw has done that ...*grin*...more than once. Just as you, Roger, openly post YOUR views. You are of course choosing to overlook that I am NOT allowed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to openly post my views and have special restrictions imposed on my posting. Even though I do not choose to indulge in or respond in kind to the abusive and offensive personal attacks that our forum has been assured by them, that our so-called 'moderators' are there to protect posters from. And which (along with spam posts) the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is now seen to be openly permitting to be inflicted on our forum from certain favoured posters. Without any censure being seen to be imposed on them and for the sort of posts other posters are now banned for posting. or, is it that catspaw should NOT feel safe to post his views? Do I detect a logical conflict here? You should perhaps be asking our 'moderators' that question. Perhaps you could then be kind enough to inform our forum what their answer is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:07 PM naawww, Roger, I am overlooking nothing...your views ARE posted openly. I understand that you have certain restrictions... You are just restricted from starting multiple threads to do so, or injecting your views on this issue into threads of others. I used to have a 'moderate' personal campaign against over-broad definitions of 'folk', too....but I have not spent years insisting that people use the language only in ways I approve of.....If I had, and if I set about that campaign with the single-minded fervor you employ, I would not be surprised to my posts on it restricted to one thread. "You should perhaps be asking our 'moderators' that question."...nope- our moderators seem to have already determined that both you & catspaw may post their views. The logical conflict is in YOUR reasoning where you ask for freedom for everyone...then suggest that catspaw should refrain...or be prevented....from posting his. (It's not quite clear which) For the 417th time...the operative rule is: Max has a group of moderators, with a couple of overseers, to help keep the joint running, and they have certain guidelines.....one of which is to control & restrict problem postings....spam is one, porn is one- but you are another. It makes no difference if you disagree with the rules or the minutiae of enforcement policies....just as it makes no difference whether *I* want a narrower definition of 'folk'. I state my opinion now then, and it's tolerated BECAUSE it's "now & then".. "go thou and do likewise" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:19 PM "You are of course choosing to overlook that I am NOT allowed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to openly post my views and have special restrictions imposed on my posting." CRAP Roger. You can post anywhere you like, all that is required is that your post is relevant to the thread it's posted in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 06 - 03:14 PM The logical conflict is in YOUR reasoning where you ask for freedom for everyone...then suggest that catspaw should refrain...or be prevented....from posting his. (It's not quite clear which) If you could evidence where I have asked or suggested such a thing - you views may have a little credibility. But as I have not - your views are seen to be as innacurate as they are selective. My request is for ALL posters to be seen to be treated openly and fairly by our 'moderators' - as you are of course fully aware. As you are fond of accusing others of introducing 'the straw man' - I am sure that you would not wish to be seen to be doing this here. Any poster who is foolish enough to be seen to be inflicting such posts (as are currently seen to be encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) on our forum only succeeds in demonstrating their foolishness. And any 'moderator' who is seen to be publicly encouraging such posting - (when other posters have been banned for such posting) is beyond foolishness. So are any posters who support such hypocrisy and double standards (even if just by being silent and not challenging them). For you wiil accept that other posters (and one in particular) - who insisted on posting similar posts as are seen to be encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team from certain favoured posters - are now banned from posting at all? And that this was done with much noise and public support? So what message is now being given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team being seen to set the example of openly encouraging such posts - containing offensive name-calling, foul language, scatological references and abusive personal attacks? That such posting is OK - when it is OK when it from 'one of the favoured few' or that all posters are being seen to be treated equally by our 'moderators'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM Another happy day at Mudcat Cafe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:26 PM "My request is for ALL posters to be seen to be treated openly and fairly by our 'moderators' - " ...and if one poster "is seen" to be making life difficult for OTHER posters? You are inordinately fond of that "seen to be" locution, but again, the operative concept IS what the moderators, guided by the "chief" moderator "see" to be the problem(s). You clamor for 'fairness', but you can't write a rule that everyone would 'see' to be fair. The current rules and enforcement policies ARE considered fair by most of those who bother to comment. YOU have created a self-reinforcing hypothesis about being treated UNfairly....the more you complain, the more restrictions you engender and the more abuse you attract....so you complain louder. *click*...off we go again. Ever see the sign "Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:39 PM That was pricelss LH ... LOL!! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Ebbie Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:47 PM I saw that one on America's Funniest Home Videos and I find myself laughing ruefully and helplessly at it. If we accept that the people who value the Mudcat are one body, biting at ourselves is not only counterproductive but very funny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM He's right about clones targeting certain posters. Absolutely right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:57 PM I NEVER click on "these threads" anymore... but, somehow, God, in his infinite wisdom, made me click tonight and see LH's link. Now, I feel bad for that poor dog. But, it just struck me so funny that the analogy is him biting his own. Seriously, I haven't followed this thread or many others of this ilk for a couple of years.... Roger... well, you konw... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:08 PM ...and if one poster "is seen" to be making life difficult for OTHER posters? The precedent set by our 'moderators' for a poster who repeatedly posts to call others poster's foul and abusive names is for them to be banned - is it not?. So if all posters doing this are seen to be treated openly and fairly there will be no problem? But they are not are they? A certain favoured poster has now been seen to be encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to post and inflict on our forum whatever abuse and scatological references they may wish. Why do you consider it acceptable for one poster to be banned and the other poster to be free from any censure and encouraged? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:55 PM Because the favoured poster is so lovable. Ya' know Roger, the only reason I ever drop by here is just for fun and to take the piss out of you for no reason whatsoever. Well, I guess there is a reason...........I seem to annoy you and that's reason enough. You have been annoying this place for years. All your huffing and puffing don't mean a thing because there is only what is. At some point Max will take the piss out of you instead of me doing it. That might be a sad day because under the neurotic asshole persona, you're an otherwise intelligent being. Maybe it will come to you in the new year though I doubt it. You're not saving Mudcat. It isn't yours to save. Back off and let Max take care of things in the best time frame that he and Jeff can. Make it a resolution for the new year huh? You've made all the points that you have to make and you can see that no one but you is too interested. "Our" forum, as you like to say, would be far better off for it. If you can't do that, then I'll be around just for the hell of it to screw with you. I'll post a lot of stupid, demeaning, and generally stupid, stuff to try and equal your stupid stuff. Give it up Rog......Why waste the bandwidth? We can both stop now as the New Year arrives!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: JennyO Date: 01 Jan 07 - 03:37 AM I'll post a lot of stupid, demeaning, and generally stupid, stuff Yes Spaw, but your stupid, demeaning, and generally stupid, stuff, is ENTERTAINING! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Jan 07 - 03:39 AM Ya' know Roger, the only reason I ever drop by here is just for fun and to take the piss out of you for no reason whatsoever. Well, I guess there is a reason...........I seem to annoy you and that's reason enough. Well, as you having been trying for so long, have not succeeded in annoying me but suceeded only in inflicting your abuse on everyone on our forum and in the process compromised everyone you may consider to have been your friend - it may be time for you to stop posting only to intentionally annoy your fellow posters? Perhaps you could explain why you consider it acceptable that special posting restrictions to be seen to be imposed on me - whilst you are openly encourged to continue to publicly inflict any abuse on our forum? And why you judge it to be acceptable for one poster to be banned and the other poster (yourself) to be free from any censure and encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, for both inflicting the same sort of unacceptable abusive postings on our forum? As you now admit you get pleasure out of intentionally annoying people, and if you intend to carry on and if you are still seen to be encouraged to inflict this on our forum publicly, and in your chosen scatological manner - please feel free instead to post whatever might please you in PMs to me. I, and I suspect many other posters will be grateful for this and then be able to discuss what they chose to on our forum without your intentional and many 'fun' attempts to prevent this. By these postings and the favoured treatment they have been seen to receive by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - you have mainly succeeded in perfectly demonstrating my point for me to our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Jan 07 - 03:51 AM Subject: RE: BS: Visit the New Site 'Mudsling' not Mudcat From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:25 PM Someone who comes into my house and behaves like some of the posters here would be regarded as an intruder and not a guest. Guests are welcome, providing they adhere to the basic norm of respecting the person/place that is providing that hospitality. It now appears that many of our forum's 'guests' are seen to set a far better example of showing respect than some of our members, 'moderators' and their usual noisy few supporters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST,Barry McKenzie Date: 01 Jan 07 - 05:54 AM As I see it, this forum is doubly blessed. Not only does it have it's very own court jester, in the form of Catspaw49, but it also has it's very own global village idiot in the form of The Shambles. Just think, if the guy had put the same amount of care and attention into his schoolwork as he does into hunting out censorship here, he could have been a Nobel laureate by now. As it is, it's a life wasted. Sad really. When he's lying in that twilight home, smelling of old piss and cabbage, there'll be no queue of little acolytes waiting to see the great crusader for truth. There's just be a lonely old, sad old, mad old obsessive, convinced that some evil bastard's tying knots in his catheter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Jan 07 - 08:41 AM "It now appears that many of our forum's 'guests' are seen to set a far better example of showing respect than some of our members, 'moderators' and their usual noisy few supporters." There ya go again Roger taking a post totally out of context. My post which you quote above was against cowardly and abusive Guests. Or Guests who are in reality Mudcatters who have a personal axe to grind, and do so by appearing to support your prejudices. Don't be misleasd by apparent 'support' from these anonymous Guests in this thread Roger, it is Mudcat they are targeting, and not you they are supporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM Subject: RE: BS: Gno more Gnome From: kendall - PM Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:11 PM I think the clones do a pretty good job of deleting the personal attacks and name calling, but they can't be everywhere. One of the worst offenders has finally been banned and I don't miss him a bit. Any chance of a reality check and any joined-up thinking taking place before such posts as the above are posted? Are they posted in the hope that later reading of them will make these dreams become reality? Led by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - our 'moderators' have for many years themselves been seen to set the example of indulging in posting personal attacks and name-calling. How can such a public show of hypocrisy and double standards ever be expected to result in anything other than posters following this example? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM From The Shambles: Any chance of a reality check and any joined-up thinking taking place before such posts as the above are posted? No comment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Jan 07 - 11:23 AM I don't believe you know what Kendall's on about in that post do you Roger? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Sorcha Date: 01 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM Ah, the amusement for the day. |
