Objections to Joe Offer

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 05 - 04:44 PM

I just voted.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 May 05 - 04:42 PM

[...]a vote on a show hands - leads to quite a different result to a secret ballot.
But we do not have a vote here and any vote rather depends on the question asked.

I've wondered why I've never been able to get to the bottom of how Joe and the Clones took over Mudcat. Perhaps a poll will help establish the facts. I've attemped to set one up here.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 03:18 PM

I would rather hear Shambles than the queen of cute.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:56 PM

They are in the other threads being hijacked by yourself; as if you did not know!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:41 PM

Where did the other five go?

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:06 PM

If you can say it in three messages, why post only one?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:57 AM

Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu    
Imposed title change from 'Objection to **** ******** {named poster]'.

It was not the case in the above but a lot of the judgement by volunteers upon thread titles is that they need to be more informative. Changes are now imposed upon these titles without the originator's knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine. But perhaps this judgement is a little unfair?

It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. Perhaps this measure may prevent the need for any future title changes to be imposed as a matter of routine? The length of the imposed title above does demonstrate the sort of title that ordinary posters could not create.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:28 AM

And as in any democracy the wishes of one do not overshadow the wishes of the many...

Our forum is now a democracy? That is news to me and I suspect to Max (the site's owner).

However, my experience with Union meetings - has shown me that on the same question - a vote on a show hands - leads to quite a different result to a secret ballot.

But we do not have a vote here and any vote rather depends on the question asked.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:18 AM

Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title?

Probably not - so why waste so much time in the first place - by imposing these changes as a matter of routine and why do some posters (who have not been subject to this imposition) waste so much time and energy in defending its imposition upon others (who may have)?

And why publicly maintain that changes MUST be imposed by anonymous volunteers - upon the originator's contribution - without their knowledge of permission?

And why not be honest in 'official' statements defending what our volunteers "deal with"?

With the poster's knowledge and permission - (which probably would be willingly given) - This can honestly be called routine 'indexing' or consolidation or whatever (if it thought that there is really such a pressing need for this). Without the originator's knowledge or permission - any other word - is just a euphemisim for routine imposed censorship.

There may well be a need at sometime on our forum - for imposed censorship. There is no need or place for it - as a matter of routine and nothing in the 'rules' that states this is to be the case.

If it is thought (by our volunteers) that there is such a need - should the reasons for this routine imposed censorship be openly explained - and not thinly disguised as something else?

If it is considered (by our volunteers) that it is too much trouble for them to try and obtain prior permission before a proposed change - perhaps this change is not so very important to make? After all - it is unlikely that someone's life has been ruined over a thread title.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:14 AM

"Shall we will leave our forum to judge the issue of - imposed Mudcat censorship - on the facts?"

Our forum has, by default - in spades. All but one. No support for that one is forthcoming (the invitation to do so at the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread has remained unanswered for a week or more now. So the one, vociferous and repetitive though he may be, remains just that - ONE. And as in any democracy the wishes of one do not overshadow the wishes of the many...

Next patient, please...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:41 AM

Joe's graciousness and patience under endless second guessing and criticism pretty much proves the fallacy of Shambles charges.

The reasons for this thread and this title are explained in the first post. I will leave our forum to judge.

My charge has been proved in this thread - without any doubt at all. This was that the 'spin' wheeled-out - of what our volunteers are said to "deal with" - is not in fact what is happening.

Perhaps Jerry you are happy to be (officially) not told the truth? Your fellow posters may not be quite so happy and may question the need for this. At least in private...........

Shall we will leave our forum to judge the issue of - imposed Mudcat censorship - on the facts?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:54 PM

HEY potato pants! I'm serious!!! I'm going to arm myself to the teeth and change my name to AbbyOakley!!!!! If anyone comes to Flori-DUH and give me a hard time I'll just blast em with my sex shooter! I mean six shooter....If I can just figure out which end those little bullet thingies go in!

Hey....I've watched The Quick and The Dead!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:44 PM

Back in a minute. Me and my pistol have to go take a cold shower. First I have to take the picture of harpy off the wall though, or it won't do any good.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:33 PM

That was sooooooo mean catspew!!!! It is NOT loose....it fits the bullets just fine.....I mean don't those little bullet things go in the hole at one of the ends???? HHHHmmmm...oh dear.....I'm confused.....I can't remember ......maybe I can find the instruction booklet......

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:21 PM

I think it tells it all that Shambles started this thread as a challenge to Joe to close it, just to prove how dictatorial Joe is. When Joe didn't do as Shambles suggested that he do, Shambles took it over as another whine-fest. Joe's graciousness and patience under endless second guessing and criticism pretty much proves the fallacy of Shambles charges.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 05 - 08:52 PM

I for one am getting sick of seeing this thread title. I have no objections to Joe Offer and I don't see why anyone in their right mind would. I think we're lucky to enjoy his long-suffering patience and service. And one thing I am sure of is none of those who cavil and carp about him would be willing or able to do the yeoman duty he does.

A

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 07:08 PM

This is getting very suggestive.

What are Harpy and Kendall talking about?
What does Kendall's wife think about all this?
I'm not at all sure I want to know.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 May 05 - 05:05 PM

New??? Well certainly not Harpy's.........It's pretty old and the parts make for a sloppy fit. Very, very loose...........Fortunately I don't think it gets much use anymore.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:10 PM

What's new.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:03 PM

I don't know Kendall, you better bring yours. I'm bringing mine!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:56 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:53 PM

hahhaha LOL, Joe O.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:28 PM

200

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:27 PM

oh, good, kendall....then we only need to worry about getting HALF-shot..*grin*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:25 AM

George, Jacqui and I will be at the Getaway. (I wont be bringing my gun)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,lesblank
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:39 AM

Shambles, you have fallen into the realm of the completely boring !!!
It is no wonder that, with idiots like you and Martin Gibson, the toilet papers manufacturers are reaping a financial windfall !!

Did it never occur to you that, without folks like Joe and Max and Dick, you would not have a forum to spout your totally asinine rants ??!! Get a life !!!!

Right on, JOE !!!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:34 AM

I'll lead you all, wherever you may be, I'll lead you all in the dance, said he......

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:20 AM

WHAT EVIDENCE ROGER???

You post the same shit over and over and it makes no sense. Your issues are becoming so laughable......the number of characters in a title line?   Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title? It just gets sillier and sillier.....Man, you got a warped groove, yaa' know?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:47 AM

Pedantic thought for the day:

There should be forfeits for posts over a certain length or for posts containing long copy-pastes, like junk mail. The Post Office would have charged excess postage, if they were real letters. And why not? Such posters abuse the storage space available to Mudcat, reducing the available space for the rest of us, possibly contributing to system crashes in some small degree, and eventually causing earlier purchase of additional storage, thus raising the running costs of Mudcat and endangering its existence!

I believe this issue to be much more important than the length of titles. Which reminds me: For the same reason, we should definitely not increase the number of characters available for title creation by posters - too much cost and risk!

But first - make junk-posters pay (this excludes April Fools and the legitimate racing towards the next 100th post, or course).

I think I'll start a campaign on this. :-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:26 AM

I feel sorry for the clones. They HAVE to read all this stuff. I can skip posts from certain individuals or simply ignore such treads altogether... turn the thread, as it were.

Keep up (unfortunately) the good work Joe, Mick, et al.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors.
Joe Offer.

Can it now finally be accepted from the evidence - that it is clear FACT the above 'spin' is not true - and that ROUTINE censorship is now encouraged to be imposed by anonymous volunteers (on matters of personal taste only) - which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism and technical errors? And that these are thought by our Editor in Chief - to "fair game" for his underlings to indulge in?

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear before the following misleading 'spin' is wheeled-out yet again for our benefit - unchanged and incomplete?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:30 AM

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

It should be noted that - this of course was pinned on to the stable door long after many horses had bolted by those who wished to shape our forum by doing these things - at the time when most other long-term posters were busy shaping our forum by posting to it.

However, is The Mudcat Cafe reserving the right to do these things - really the same as anonymous volunteers now imposing them upon fellow posters as a matter of routine?

Max reserving the right to do these things is sensible.

Using this to justify needless meddling as a matter of routine, by fellow posters (some of them remaining anonymous) and the imposition of their personal taste and judgement upon the invited and freely given contributions of - other fellow posters without the originator's knowledge or consent - is not sensible.

It does not show the correct level of respect and in the long-run the division caused by it - will prove counter-productive.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 01:55 AM

I never did enough of anything in the 1960s to really, truly understand this thread. Just thought I'd mention that to y'all.

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

Ditto that. I think. Or, maybe on second thought, don't ditto that which I have already dittoed. So just ditto the second quote but not the first. Right.

Hey, man, wanna pass that over here? Sshhhhhhhhshhssshhhshhhhshshsssshkabooooooom.

So like now, I'm changing sparkplugs on Venus, man.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:39 PM

Excellent idea, Bill D. And Shambles, I wish you would come to the Getaway too. I can picture all of us surrounding you, glasses held high. And you would laugh, and go and sin no more...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:14 PM

ummm..Roger, we make a lot of music there...you oughta come sometime.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:09 PM

I think that, at the Getaway this year, since there will be so many of Shambles thread-buddies there, we ought to have a toast to him for the service he does in uniting so many disparate souls in one grand goal.

Perhaps (I think that's his favorite word) we can get me, Joe, El Greco, Kendall, Big Mick, Ebbie, Jeri, Amos, harpgirl...I'm sure there are others...and who knows..perhaps Max...
Who else would like to join in raising a glass to our favorite purveyor of hypothetical questions?

I will be glad to take pictures!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:22 PM

to top it all off,i cannot believe that anyone cares about it all that dam much, cept maybe mg and/or sham....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:40 PM

Drat! Sorry. Looks like I wuz careless about closing HTML...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:39 PM

Azizi, I love you to bits! :)))))))

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Sounds like Joe Offer to me. Never heard him say a good word for himself (damn right too!), but seen plenty of good words for him (added one or two grudgingly non-critical ones meself occasionally...)

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

Do they run an adoption scheme? Cos there are one or two I could nominate as needing it... (but the gods help the poor bloody village!)

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

{Evil grin} Oh, pleasepleaseplease... canIcanIcanI? {/Evil grin}

Oh, Roger... ;-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:27 PM

And for those who are puffed up with their own importance, here's another African American folk saying that was used as the title of a 1970s book by Alice Childress:

"A hero ain't nothin but a sandwich".

[The goes for women too].

BTW, I mean no disrespect toward those who have physical challenges to their hearing and seeing.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:19 PM

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

            
          'Those who have eyes let them see.'

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:12 PM

There's an old African American folk saying that "you should never let your mouth go faster than your brain."

In discussion forums such as Mudcat, that saying also applies, but now it's the fingers that are doing the talking.

And from other sources: "Those who have ears let them hear".

And

"If the shoe fits wear it."

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:28 PM

Dance, dance, wherever ye may be, I am the Lord of the Dance, said he .........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:09 PM

Joe,

HERE is the FAQ post that includes the Editorial Policy (page down there to find the bold subhead).

It begins with this statement:

"We occasionally get requests for information about what we delete and why we delete it. Most of the principles we follow are stated above, but let me try to state it more succinctly: The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

In sections of that post above the Editorial Policy, there are guidelines about thread titling and song-posting, as well as non-music copy-pastes.

All of this information has been available to us all for quite some time, including The Shambles. (He's been invited to review those policies several times that I know of, personally.) IMO the policy is quite clear that the policy is the policy is the policy. IMO it's also clear in the FAQ that Max gives his input on policy and that you report to him; that is reflected in the FAQ numerous times.

If any member (including The Shambles) wants to comment on policy that's fine, but the policy IS THE POLICY.

Joe, you do NOT have to answer policy questions or objections in any or every thread where they pop up. One place you can answer them, if you care to, is in the FAQ thread, so that people's thoughts can be addressed and their posts retired after folks have had a chance to clarify their understanding of policy.

I have no doubt that when people offer input constructively, you receive it constructively and, often, incorporate it into your thoughts about next steps to improve Mudcat. I even know (personally) that when the input is not fully positive, in the end you usually manage to consider the thinking behind the input, and incorporate it in your thoughts in a positive fashion, as well.

I also have no doubt that these factor in when you and Jeff and Max confer about new directions, tools, or approaches. IMO, no one could reasonably expect that the process is instantaneous.

I would like to encourage you to think about a site management policy about how and where people's questions, objections, and/or input about policy will be addressed. You have used the FAQ in that way many times, with excellent results. IMO it's a really good approach that could become a stated, enforced policy. You could post a heads-up in other threads, "Please see FAQ for handling this."

Thanks again for all the good work you do here,

~Susan

PS, this post, as I understand it, belongs to me-- that anything we choose to "copyright" is our own, the site's texts otherwise belonging to Max. Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 May 05 - 01:37 PM

Going to the Getaway this year, Kendall? How about you, Brucie?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:59 PM

Folk may have missed the (official) reply to by Joe Offer to Kedall's question. This is because in was inserted as an editorial comment into Kendall's post and did not refresh this thread.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall - PM
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things, but they're relatively rare. We don't allow Spam or racism, and we don't allow lengthy non-music copy-paste posts (we encourage people to post the entire text of music information they find, and ask them to include attribution). We reserve the right to delete messages in other situations where a need may arise, but I can't think of any such situations now.
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-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any imposed change.

It is surely worth a try?

It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can. Especially when often the routine imposed change is simply our volunteers feeling that they need to impose a change - by adding something like 'UK'.

If the routine imposed change is just adding "Lyr req:" - perhaps when starting a thread - posters should not be given an optional choice - to use a prefix or not?

Is this illusion of an 'optional choice' a little dishonest - if a prefix is later to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:13 PM

Let it ride, Joe. You've responded to every "fact" endless times, and there will never be an end. (Now, Shambles, you can copy and paste this statement and refute it.) Temperately phrased, endless repitition is still endless repetition. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder(another chance to copy and paste a sentence, Roger.)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 05 - 11:49 AM

Ayup, Kendall. You're right about that.
And I was so proud of myself for being so reasonable and logical. Of course, logic doesn't work with some people. They just keep repeating themselves.
Guess I'd better just ignore Sh----es.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 10:14 AM

Joe Offer says.

As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors.

I am (almost) lost for words too...The above is simply NOT true and this 'spin' is stated after I have provided the (following) evidence that proves it is NOT true. You can judge from this evidence............

The following post was recently deleted by a still unknown volunteer. It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem. The justification given by Joe Offer – before he was even aware that Ted's post had in fact been deleted or by whom – was that these type of posts were thought to be 'obnoxious'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact imposed changes to thread titles are now undertaken by our anonymous volunteers as a matter of routine. As this recent case where am imposed changed (or addition) to a BS non-music related thread was changed-back.

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


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem – but a change was imposed upon this thread title as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent.

Perhaps all this routine imposition and judgement can now stop – or any further 'official' explanations given as to 'what we deal with' can include these now routine actions? Which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:49 AM

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is detrimental. Shambles is now demanding a defense of our designation of the number of letter spaces allowed in a thread title, implying that some sort of tyranny was involved in allowing 40 spaces instead of 43, or 46, or 47.5.

I will leave others to judge - if I was in fact "demanding" anything.

I certainly was not "demanding" yet another public 'defence' of everything and a little more personal judgement thrown in. Although that is just what we usually get.

I was asking questions to establish if there was a difference in the number of title spaces available. When it was established that it was a fact that our volunteers did have more spaces available than the ordinary poster - I just suggested that perhaps a change would be a good idea.

Is it a such a bad suggestion? I will leave it to you to judge........