 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 02 May 05 - 03:53 PM Isn't this just turning inot another "Censorship on Mudcat" thread. Please no more......enough already Shambles you have a whole thread to yourself on this subject.... Take break get out for a walk or something...PLEASE |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: wysiwyg Date: 02 May 05 - 04:07 PM Roger, give me a break-- "Leadership," in the sense I used it and which you mischaracterize in your response to me, is something that has many levels and faces, everywhere. Joe's leadership IN THE SITUATIONS I DESCRIBED is what I meant. Why don't you take some leadership yourself and do something PRODUCTIVE to contribute, instead of sniping at others' duly authorized leadership? I mean, really, why-- I'm asking it as a question. If you mean that you missed somehow that Joe has been asked and is supported to do all he does-- ASK MAX. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jpk Date: 02 May 05 - 05:06 PM well i have no objections to offer objecting to the objections to joe offer's,offer.end of offer. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 02 May 05 - 05:43 PM I'm glad you said that. My sentiments exactly. (I hope you said a good thing.) Shambles, on the scale of human achievement, Joe is doin' real good. Let him do what he's gotta do. It's part of life you'll have to come to accept. If there had been an inherent unfairness/discrimination against folks here there would be more than two or three people complaining about it. Take a look. G'head. Got the picture? Joe and the Clones do a great job keeping things together and coherent. Go start your own forum--they are available for free on Yahoo (and maybe MSN). Those who are so offended by the 'heavy hand of censorship' on the Mudcat will follow you there and you can all be happy together--well, the two or three of you who are offended. YOU are like a friggin' virus that mutates every thread into some damned thing to do with censorship. Face facts: you want to complain. Please let us all know what your new site is and how to get to it. I look forward to a visit. BM |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Big Mick Date: 03 May 05 - 01:04 AM Congratulations, Roger. You sucked them in again. Good lad. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 05 - 02:29 AM M.Ted says (and is entitled to in as many words as he wishes without an judgement from me). What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him. Ted - are you saying that Joe Offer does not like me? *Smiles* Not sure how M.Ted knows this. But why would I wish to be liked by Joe (or any other poster) and why would I be hurt if Joe did not like me. If this mattered and if that was my objective - getting Joe to like me would be rather easy - wouldn't it? For all I would have to do is to agree to everything he does or says and post nice flattering things about his 'leadership'. I don't agree with very much Joe now says or does to our forum (and I post to say so) - but I also don't see why any fellow poster should be now expected to do this. Or to be expected to like Joe or to be liked by Joe. I would like to think that all contributors are entitled to receive respect for their views and to give equal respect to the views of others - expressed in the words and manner of their choice. Being able to freely express and evidence my view and enable others to do this - is all I am interested in. Facilting in enabling me and other fellow posters to express their view - and not (anonymously) judging our worth to post and imposing their personal taste upon fellow posters - is all Joe and his volunteers should be interested in. My view - as a long-term poster - is that sites where our volunteers feel qualified to impose as much judgement and as many rules as they wish - and wish to be seen as the most important priority - are out there for them to join or to create. The Mudcat Forum is NOT that place - it would never had become the fine forum (that it just about struggles to remain) - if it was that place. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 03 May 05 - 05:03 AM Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 02 May 05 - 03:49 PM " why do so many changes have to be imposed upon fellow poster's contributions - without their knowledge or consent or any attempt to obtain it?" Because it is better that way. And there really AREN'T that many changes, anyway. Why is it thought better to impose this - and to whom is it better – posters who know they will always themselves be safe from any imposed changes to their contributions and show no concern for others who may not be so fortunate? As to the opinion that there AREN'T many changes imposed upon fellow posters – the following thread contains the evidence to the contrary. Including two recent cases where the routine imposition by anonymous volunteers was found to be mistaken and had to be CHANGED BACK. Censorship on Mudcat Is even one imposed change without a fellow poster's knowledge and consent (where there are no urgent concerns) – one too many? But let's look and all the personal judgements involved and the number of imposed changes - needed to be justified by our volunteers - on this issue alone. To protect us from what terrible harm – exactly? The imposed closure of two entire threads and the leaving of one thread in the music section called 'Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER' – by a named volunteer. The (then anonymous) closure (at the request of the originator) of this thread called Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER'. The re-opening of this thread called Objections to a 'FELLOW POSTER' by a named volunteer (without the originator's knowledge or consent). The imposed moving of this thread called 'Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER' to the B/S section whilst leaving the thread called Objection to a 'FELLOW POSTER on the music- related section. That is just the story – so far. Now is there anything demonstrated in this evidence – that is open, fair or showing any clear and consistent objective about our current censorship, so-called 'system'? When you may not know what to do – for the best – to prevent yourself from making matters worse and doing the wrong thing. The very best thing – is to do nothing. The more judgements that our volunteers think they need to urgently impose upon their fellow posters - as a matter now of routine – the more chances there are of making a mistake, giving out the wrong message, confusing posters and making matters worse. Posters loyally defending - (mainly because our volunteers are thought well-intentioned) - all the excuses and justification given of all this of this imposition by our volunteers is only going to make matters worse – in the long run. It is time for a re-think - before it is too late. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 May 05 - 09:17 AM I've hit on an idea. I've taken the old Cold Fusion code I posted a link to in one of these threads and have re-written it in ASP/VB. Shambles can now have his own forum. One pretty faithful to the original program (and I assume early Mudcat) with no later Mudcat additions/enhancements, no Joe or clones, etc. Here you are Shambles have fun. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: nutty Date: 03 May 05 - 09:34 AM How about building him a website as well Jon .... then he could spend all day arguing with himself. The censorship debate would be fascinating. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 03 May 05 - 10:09 AM "Congratulations, Roger. You sucked them in again. Good lad." You are part of the they you mention, Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 May 05 - 10:26 AM Well I could nutty... The best I can do at the second as subdomains are not working is http://www.folkinfo.org/shambles/ |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 05 - 12:27 PM Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion. As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it. Learn to live with it. -Joe Offer- There is nothing like an open censorship 'system' with a consistent approach and one that treats all posters equally. And from the evidence provided here - our so-called 'system - is obviously nothing like this. Perhaps it is now time to review current practice - and change it to something that cannot be thought secretive, unfair, arbitrary and which imposes upon the basic freedoms of ordinary posters the most. To one that can be honestly defended by all Mudcatters - without causing them embarrassment that reading the currently attempted defence of this 'system' does. Unless it is reviewed and changed - the hypocrisy entrenched in this 'system' and the customary 'stone-wall defence of it - will just continue to feed and encourage those who are described as 'trouble makers' and cause yet more needless division. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Kim C Date: 03 May 05 - 12:48 PM I object to the objections. Can't believe you are all actually wasting time over this. Can't we all just get along? Sheesh. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 03 May 05 - 04:10 PM Unreal Jon.....Very nice. Shambles, Jon has put it together for you and I am sure you can "advertize" your threads here and invite interested 'Catters to join you in a place where no censorship is imposed. You have beaten this subject to death here at Mudcat and when I read you saying you'd be happy just to get your views out here........Well Sham, you oughta' be not just happy but positively orgasmic!!! You have made the same points in at least 10 different ways each. Not much more you can do here. So why not take Jon up on his offer and create the new forum by starting some topics of interest and issuing invites to join you in the discussion over there. Go for it! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 05 - 04:21 PM Well, Shambles, I actually read other people's posts;-) >As for Gargoyle accusing Dick Greenhaus and me of assisting his survival - well, I do like gargoyle, >in a twisted sort of way.... I like Martin Gibson, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: harpgirl Date: 03 May 05 - 04:47 PM I agree with KimC. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 03 May 05 - 06:00 PM It would be wise to always agree with our volunteers. Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- From the following thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819 |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Guy Wolff Date: 03 May 05 - 07:22 PM I am so happy that Mudcat is still around and happily Max gets help around the edges .Thank you Joe for trying to keep order in our Bedlam . It isnt an easy job . All the best to all here . Guy |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 03 May 05 - 10:25 PM Roger, if I am ever in deep shit, and the tenacity of my rescuer has to be the ultimate in tenacity, I hope it's you there to get my ass outta the fire. You are driving me nuts. But Roger, I like you. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alba Date: 03 May 05 - 11:08 PM Roger...Please click here: The effect your having on me now!!! I do believe I have developed a twitch...lol Blessings Jude:>) |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 03 May 05 - 11:22 PM I am going thru a change, Roger. This ain't a good thing, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 01:48 AM That is just the story – so far. Now is there anything demonstrated in this evidence – that is open, fair or showing any clear and consistent objective about our current censorship, so-called 'system'? The latest twist (though perhaps not the last one) is that the following change appears NOW to have been imposed by a named volunteer. Or perhaps they obtained the originator's permission first? Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 03 May 05 - 09:12 PM I think it's time to change the title of this thread to something everybody will understand. I also thought I'd include the messages on this subject from the Help Forum. The last message is especially good. -Joe Offer- That thread is now called Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Sorcha Date: 04 May 05 - 01:59 AM Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer.... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:50 AM Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer.... Simple answer ---- to a not so simple question. Because I don't hate many things - certainly not our forum. And I do love many things - including the basic right for people to be able to express their view here - without personal judgement being made of them and the 'rules' views and personal taste of others being imposed upon them. Perhaps as you have now posted to this thread - you could also be asking why certain posters think they are qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters? There are some practical difficulties in this I know - as some of these volunteers are anonymous. But that appears to be OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 May 05 - 03:43 AM Subject: Objection to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM Objections to John Mehlbeher [snip] I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement. Perhaps a better example can be set? [snip] Shambles now objects: That thread is now called Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 05:38 AM Shambles suggested that it was inappropriate to have John's name in the thread title, so I took his advice. Thanks for the suggestion, Shambles. -Joe Offer- I am not sure that my advice would ever have been to impose any action on any of the three threads nor to impose a change to that - or any other thread title without the originator's knowledge or consent. I have made other suggestions..... But most – if not all of these tend to be thought (by Joe Offer) too be problematic and are rejected. Such as the one in this thread. Censorship on Mudcat Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion? {The following in brown writing} Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread. -Joe Offer- Which to me reads that 'efforts ARE made (by our volunteers) to respect and preserve the thread originator's work' – BUT if our volunteers do not wish to make the effort first (even when there is no urgency required) – our volunteer's wishes - even those of anonymous ones - should now on our forum be thought to take priority over the wishes of ordinary Mudcatters and their freely given contributions to the Mudcat community. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 04 May 05 - 08:02 AM As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that?
And we view thread and message titles as indexing tools that are to be used to help Mudcatters determine the contents of a thread or message. We do change thread titles and move messages to consolidate duplicate threads as part of our indexing process. And we do occasionally close threads for various reasons - but people are free to start a new thread or post to a related thread if there's a need. The "Mehlberger" thread title was changed to enable visitors to understand what the thread contains without knowing who John Mehlberg(er) is. The Girvan thread will be changed sooner or later to something like Girvan (folk festival 2005). Threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" are routinely changed to "Lyr req:" plus song title. With the few exceptions mentioned above, the contents of messages are rarely changed. This is a fairly comprehensive explanation of our editing policy. Does anybody but Shambles object? The Editorial Policy is here (click) in the FAQ, last revised in 2003. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alba Date: 04 May 05 - 09:40 AM Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>) Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol Blessings Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that? If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to. Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away. The facts can be found on the following thread. Censorship on Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: M.Ted Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM Roger likes to suggest things and then complains if you don't do what he asks, and and complains if you do. Two examples at least are documented in this thread--I think we should hand him over to the folks on the "Assaults Upon Teachers" thread who want to reinstate corporeal punishment. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 04 May 05 - 10:26 AM Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllpuh |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 11:15 AM Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>) Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol Blessings Jude Please get this right - it is now JOE's FORUM on JOE's CAFE and only Joe will tell you what's forbidden. 'Learn to live with it' OK? *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 11:45 AM Roger, you say: "If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to." You claim here the fact that you feel you need to provide evidence, and that you provided the exerpts earlier, as evidence in itself. "I feel the need to provide evidence, I provide evidence, so clearly that fact is evidence". Sorry, Rog, that is a perfectly circular argument, and counter to any logic. You just invalidated your argument. You then go on to say: "Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away." You state yourself that this "evidence" is ignored by people, and they express opinions counter to yours. Is that not evidence that you stand alone in your claims therefore? I will not even go into how you painted yourself into a corner with the start of your 5:38AM post. Joe offered an olive branch and you took it and attempted to hit him with it! Not nice, I thought... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 12:05 PM George I confess that I am a truly terrible person.............. But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum? Are terrible people like me - now forbidden to do this? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 12:30 PM There, there, Roger you are not a terrible person. Don't go all defensive... I just said that I thought one particular action was "not nice" - that hardly characterises anybody as "terrible" now! My Mum used to say "there are no bad people about - we know that, because all the bad ones are in jail". |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 04 May 05 - 12:35 PM Apocalypse NOW! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 12:39 PM But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum? Shambles, based on your posting history you have never "moderatly expressed" your opinion. That is part of the problem people have with your posts. They are endlessly repetitive. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: JedMarum Date: 04 May 05 - 01:24 PM Wow - how did I miss out on all this fun??? I stumbled into this thread, checking to see if Jeri was still posting at MC, since I haven't seen anything from her in a while ... and what fun do I find? This thread, this tempest in a teacup, this "only at Mudcat" style disucssion! I loved your Sunday Mass story Joe - GOOD FOR YOU. I wish I'd been there! Great post Jeri - re: sh*tting in the middle of the room ... As for Objections to Joe?? I love Joe Offer. Thanks for all you do at Mudcat ... and as someone more clever then me said above, I object to the objectors! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 04 May 05 - 02:01 PM Ok Joe, I guess I spoke too soon. I see racist remarks as personal attacks. Anyway, if I had to make a list of the most forbidden posts, personal attacks would be number 1. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:26 PM They are endlessly repetitive. But repetitively moderate. This despite of lot of - much less moderate provocation. Which tends to be equally or even more repetitive and seldom actually addresses the issue. For the true test of our forum now - is not how well it treats the compliant poster but how well it accommodates our 'trouble makers'. These defined as anyone (even long-term posters) who may have suffered at their hands and who may not post to say that everything that Joe Offer and his anonymous volunteers are doing to our forum is quite so wonderful. For both sides of this may even be equally right. How you see something - simply depends on the view you have from where you are sitting. Our volunteer or fellow posters - simply judging and being encouraged to judge - a so-called 'trouble-maker's worth as a poster - does not solve the problem - it just causes more division and ill-feeling. If a more imaginitive and realistic solution is not found of accommodating all views - I fear there will be many more trouble-makers created - than there will be loyal subjects and true followers. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 02:38 PM the same arguments repeated endlessly even if individually moderate make the entire effort immoderate. A half cup of ice cream is a moderate serving. 150 half cup servings of ice cream is extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:57 PM No one is being force to eat it - are they? Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 03:11 PM I don't understand the second sentence Roger - could you please explain? As for the first, well, you are forcing us to eat it. Only today you suggested that scanning through 900 posts of another thread on a similar topic was not too much in your view. As someone who wants to continue being informed by this thread - and the other one - could I request: "No more ice cream, please"? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 May 05 - 03:14 PM Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour. ??? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Wolfgang Date: 04 May 05 - 03:53 PM Speaking about ice cream.... Mama, can I get an ice cream? No, you can't. Mama, why can't I get an ice cream? Because it is close to dinner time? Mama, what has dinner time to do with ice cream? I want that you get something real to eat Mama, why is ice cream not real? It is as real as anything else, but if you eat an icecream now you will not eat enough of the nourishing food Mama, do I get an ice cream? NO, SHUT UP NOW, you get on my nerves. Why do you scream at me, Mama, when I'm only asking politely? Cause I've other things to do. If you've got other things to do, Mama, why do you scream? ----- Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream? I'm only asking politely. Because too much ice cream is not good for you. Now, Mama, you change your reasons, what is it? Is too much ice cream bad for me or just does it make me eat less from what is good? I can't argue all day with you. That's both the same. I've heard what you want and the answer is no. NO! Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream now? OH STOP IT and FUCK OFF Mama, do you think using swear words is a good example for me to follow?.... No but it's you who makes me do it. Me, but I haven't uased swear words as you have No, you haven't but you repeatedly ask the same question and don't listen to my response. I do listen but you give me conflicting reasons why I can't get an ice cream --- Do I get one or not? No But why no? Because Is that a reason or is it just your whim? You don't listen to my reasons Was saying 'because' a reason? You can say what you want you won't get an ice cream Was saying 'because' a reason? No and you know that. Now go play something else. But if you have no reason as you now admitted yourself why can't I get an ice cream? The mention of the ice cream made me going off on a tangent. Sorry for the thread creep. Now back to the theme of the thread. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jpk Date: 04 May 05 - 04:42 PM i would object to the rejection of my objections,but since i have no real objections to offer,i retract my objection to the rejection of my offer to object to Offers,offer |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 May 05 - 05:02 PM Just to keep some reference to music in here, anyone remember Smokey Joe's Cafe by the Robins? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: katlaughing Date: 04 May 05 - 05:17 PM Haven't read the whole damn thing, but Wolfgang that was BRILL! LMAO! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Date: 04 May 05 - 05:35 PM Now I know what Shambles does for a living - he's a political speech writer. I'm guessing for George Bush Jr. The wisdom, the clarity of thought - it's all there. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 05:57 PM And what do you do for a living? Sell dope? |
| Share Thread: |
