 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autospaw Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM You demonstrate the inteligence of a brain dead zombie, learn to read. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autospaw Date: 01 May 05 - 01:10 PM You are acting like a brain dead zombie, get a friggin life. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 May 05 - 01:09 PM OK spaw, I'm not very good at this but I will set it out on a trial run of 3. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 12:57 PM LAY Minister? Look Joebro.....I've always wanted to ask, what is a LAY Minister in charge of? And if not, congratulations anyway! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 05 - 12:46 PM But anyway, 42, I meant to tell what happened to the priest. He's 80, and drives to the church from his retirement home in Sacramento, 45 minutes away. During the service, I was a bit concerned that something bad had happened to him. I found out afterwards that he just got the schedule confused - which is easy to do because our parish has 3 churches and 4 priests. the pastor wasn't too happy with him for not showing up, though. This retired guy is a crusty old Irishman, and he's quite a kick. He washed my feet on Holy Thursday, and then he took his pitcher of water and poured it down my pants leg. Then he looked up at me with a big grin and winked. And it looks like this incident is ending my five years of blissful unemployment/retirement, because I accepted the job the pastor offered me. I'm actually going to get paid for being a lay minister, and it shouldn't take much more time than the volunteer work I'm already doing there. So, I'll still have time to annoy Shambles and defy his rules. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 May 05 - 12:21 PM "There are double standards here" Tough... live with it or fuck off... "when I answer your assertions, you fall back to namecalling and filth" Most children do... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 12:13 PM Ah yes....Open it up and out he comes with all of his standard arguments. Nice you can get them all out so early Roger! But you did take mine out of the context of the situation. Notice I said Joe had asked for additional input. At the thime I posted, no changes had been made. Many others gave opinions to Joe and Joe requested them from others including John Mehlberg! The final decsion was okay with that group and satisfied several problems including ones of access. You knew that but using my post at that time looks so much better for YOU doesn't it? Dig termites Man.... JON, I had no idea you had actually created that program. It's beautiful, it really is. But I think you CAN do autojoe AND an autospaw as well. Here's how and WHY!!!! As to how.....Since Roger has heard all of the answers a hundred times before, load up the answers to Sham's most popular 12 "concerns." Now spit out a sentence from each of a random three answers and you have autojoe! That's not what Joe does, but for all the good the other answers do, he might as well. For autospaw, load up 12 answers and 12 insults and spit those out randomly. Same premise as with autojoe because Sham doesn't really pay any attention anymore. And one insult is as good as another..... NOW.....WHY?????? Well, the next time one of these starts, you can spit out all three characters and split their responses over the first 30 posts. Should anyone else actually try to make sense of it, spit out another 10 following each real poster. This would make these threads go a lot faster if you wouldn't mind doing it! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 01 May 05 - 12:03 PM Martin, it's YOUR problem when you can't get any message across, should you have one, because you can't stop yourself from being abusive. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to people trying to verbal abuse. Oops - free speech doesn't even extend to privately owned websites. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Big Mick Date: 01 May 05 - 12:03 PM The difference, as I see it, is that when I answer your assertions, you fall back to namecalling and filth. I believe in hard debate, and strong defense of positions taken. I just don't go for the bomb lobbing method I have seen you use too often. I prefer this type of discourse. But enough of what's wrong with Mick or Martin. Let's just do the discussion/debate and go from there. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Once Famous Date: 01 May 05 - 11:53 AM Big Mick, free speech is free speech. Yes, I think it is fine to tell you or someone they are full of shit if I think so. Some like you offend too easily. You hit but you cry too loud when you are hit back harder. I perceive it as your weakness, not mine. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Big Mick Date: 01 May 05 - 11:47 AM Semantics, Martin,nothing more. Max owns it, and if he decides not to pay the bill, it is history. With regard to your free speech comments, it is hogwash. You want the freedom to call decent folks c**ts. You want the freedom to just trash folks that are trying to discuss issues with you, simply because they don't agree with your position. Your answer when logic fails you is to use filthy language and ignore the contentions. I have seen you, in other threads, have decent discussion. I wish you would do more of that. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Once Famous Date: 01 May 05 - 11:28 AM I support Shambles regarding censorship here. This forum has some rules made up to protect certain individuals and ideologies. There are double standards here and it's free speech by convenience only. Nonetheless, I think Joe is only human, and like any human, let's his own personal biases get in the way. Silly to call it Max's forum and not OUR forum. I look at it as it is Max's forum for US. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: 42 Date: 01 May 05 - 11:05 AM I'd like to know what happened to the priest! j |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 May 05 - 10:42 AM No Jeri, I can't do an autojoe, I think you would need to delve deeply into the realms of artificial inteligence before you could even make an attempt. One big problem I see is that an autojoe would have to "read" a post and put it in some form of context before producing a reasoned reply. I suppose the autoshambles could be extended to produce extra functionality but that is rather difficult just working from the HTML. I don't think it would be of use to mankind but a more advanced version could for example. 1. monitor threads for title changes and generate an autocomplaint thread. 2. ditto for thread closures and deletion. 3. build up a table of links to ensure that every autocomplaint is crossreferenced in every other "censorsip" thread. 4. monitor threads for addition of brown text and autogenerate a reply questioning whether the opinion is personal or not. 5. Log the usage of "favourite qutotes" and set a desired frequency of including them, eg. If "don't sweat the rules" has not been used in the last 24hrs set its priority to urgent to ensure it will be used in the next autoreply, regardless of relevance. 6. etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 10:06 AM Alice - one of the more important requirements to be a saint - is that you are dead and whatever good you may have done in your life - you are not now able to do any further harm. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 01 May 05 - 10:05 AM Jeez, Jon! I didn't know you'd written a program(me)! Imagine what you could do if you used your powers to fight for the good of personkind! Got an autojoe yet? What's also funny is your "LOL spaw" is to a Shambles paste from another thread. If I had broadband, I'd just copy and paste the whole censorship thread in here, because most of it will wind up here (repeatedly) anyway. That might mess up this thread though. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alice Date: 01 May 05 - 09:56 AM Didn't have time to read the entire thread, but, Joe, I read your message about leading the Sunday worship when the priest didn't show up. Reminds me of that saying, "No good deed goes unpunished". I think you and all the volunteers are saints for taking on the time and effort to keep mudcat going. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 May 05 - 09:44 AM LOL spaw. I thought the same as soon as I read the question. Jeri, I'll explain my (mk2) "autohambles" a little. It is currently loaded with 10 of shambles' quotes and 20 paragraphs taken from shambles' replies. It creates posts by randomly selecting 1 quote and 4 paragraphs of replies. I have to say I'm quite proud of this masterpiece. In tests I have found it achieves precisely the same level of logic as the real shambles does... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 01 May 05 - 09:28 AM I said: Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else to clean it up for you, possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person you are, you can't blame them. Then Shambles said: Not a yet another double standard here Jeri - is it? You think it is wrong to shit on the floor and expect someone to clean it up - but OK when an anonymous volunteer does clean it up - but decides to shit on the floor again themselves? And I say: 1) The short response: Duh? Hello? No, there isn't a double standard. Please figure this out on your own. 2) The long version: Neither you nor GUEST can<read, can you? Please provide quotes from my post that support your interpretation of what I think which I quoted to look like this. You've got people so crammed into roles and you ASSUME they'll follow your<little script that it makes you blind and deaf to what they actually DO say. You wind up just looking stupider than your<own role calls for when the person doesn't behave in the expected manner. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Megan L Date: 01 May 05 - 09:20 AM Joe take heart, i'm sure the doctor could give you some relief from the shambling gibson syndrome :) |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 09:02 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM Ya' know Roger, a lot of those 'Catters so concerned you say over Joe's censorship, appear to be asking for it over on the Mehlberg threads. Joe had plenty of time and opportunity to "impose his will" and did not. He posted later and explained some and asked for more input. That's what goes on almost all of the time. Now go and dig a few termites or something and we'll talk again later.............. Spaw Oh I think he did........*Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: harpgirl Date: 01 May 05 - 08:59 AM I must certainly object to Joe Offer holding mass on mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 08:50 AM Jeri said Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them. Not a yet another double standard here Jeri - is it? You think it is wrong to shit on the floor and expect someone to clean it up - but OK when an anonymous volunteer does clean it up - but decides to shit on the floor again themselves? Shit is shit - no matter who shits it. I think we should be be clear that the most harmful thing here is to encourage the idea that thread tiles like this one - inviting personal judgements upon fellow posters are acceptable. This concern was something that I had seen Joe express recently - so expecting some consistancy - I was amazed that when Joe thought he had to rush to impose his personal judgement upon fellow poster's contributions - and given a choice of 3 thread titles - that Joe decided to leave the thread title that invited personal judgements to be made of a fellow poster's right to post. The ojections were NOT in fact TO the individual named - but what they posted and the potential offence and harm done by this content. This was the important issue. But our volunteers setting the example of actually choosing (out of a choice of 3) to leave that title in place and choosing (anonymously) to both delete and re-open this one - is I fear only going to encourage the idea that personal judgement of fellow posters is acceptable and starting threads - with titles to this end - is a good thing. Perhaps it can finally be accepted that imposed censorship is DIFFICULT and PROBLMATIC. A case of being damned if you do and damned if don't. That is why - UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE FORCED TO - imposing your personal tastes upon the freely given contributions of others - without their knowledge or permission should NOT EVER be undertaken as a matter of routine. Which is now sadly the case. What something appears to be the obvious solution - very often turns out in the long-run - not to be the easy option that it promised to be and sometimes becomes a far bigger problem that the one it was set-up to address. When the tail starts to wag the dog - it is often difficult to convince others that the dog is in fact as friendly as it is claimed to be. Without being accused of a double standard - how can our volunteers now pursuade a poster starting a thread with a title that invited personal judgements of a named fellow poster - that this was not a practice to be encouraged? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: matai Date: 01 May 05 - 07:40 AM Who's (Fr?) Joe Offer? (-: They say whether negative or positive it's all publicity. So thanks I really enjoyed the priestly officiating story Joe. I've noticed whenever I open up these kinds of threads that something quite interesting often happens. Great that there are people here who know how to make silk purses. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 07:33 AM If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . . Frank L. Thank you Frank. But I am but learning from the masters of the double standard here - and I still have a lot to learn from them yet. *Smiles* OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain? I'm learning new things each day! So are all of - us on OUR forum............. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes ------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:25 AM I have to agree with Joe – when he agrees with me – in the following http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1448049 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. Sadly not all (of those who's views would appear to matter most) are in agreement with the idea that it is "our" forum… From: Big Mick - PM Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is Censorship on Mudcat Has all the details and evidence. – Fot it would now appear - from Joe Offer's OFFICIAL brown words in that thread – that OUR forum is NOW to be only - for the convenience of our volunteers. Some of this select band -who will able to remain anonymous, whilst imposing their personal judgement upon fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 07:23 AM Oh no......I was just waiting and watching to see how long it would take..........***sigh***...............Eagle Wing, you've gone and done it now. (:<)) Ever since this no-win thread was atarted, I ve been waitng for Roger to drag it over to his favorite topic without seeming to do so at all. I bear you no ill will my friend, it was inevitable and someone was bound to give him the opening he's been longing for. Don't worry about it!!! We luvya' anyway!!! Here is the particular line that opens the door: OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain? Sham, why not take a break? Give it a rest for awhile huh Roger? Go dig some termites or something........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:47 AM Joe's story about the time the priest didn't turn up struck a chord for me. (Off thread but why not?) I'm a Baptist but I was temporarily working in a Catholic Primary School (4+ to 11). It was my turn for a class mass. I had trained the kids to do the prayers and to sing the hymns to my guitar accompaniment. The parents had all arrived but no priest. The headteacher phoned around and none of the local priests or deacons seemed to be available. So I started the mass anyway. Obviously, as a "protestant" I could not celebrate the communion but I did do a short homily assuring the parents that, although we could not partake in the bread and wine, yet Jesus' real presence was still there as he had promised that where two or three gather in his name he is there in the midst. Despite the fact that some of those parents were died in the wool traditionalists, I received many words of thanks from parents and Headteacher. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints - unless they went to the head and he did not pass them on. Just to let Joe know that some people get away with it and to say how much I appreciate his work. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:32 AM I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues. I'm learning new things each day! Frank L |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:21 AM But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard... Talking of double standards - there is also the heads I win, tails you lose syndrome - as with your: I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles* If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . . Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Georgiansilver Date: 01 May 05 - 04:29 AM Sorry Ebbie...wasn't intending to get into deep political discussion...Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 05 - 02:37 AM Hey, when El Greko confesses, we're going to sell tickets. Should be a great fundraiser for Mudcat... I suppose I ought to confess that I closed the thread this morning at Shambles request, just because he wanted it closed. But then I've been wanting to tell my Fr. Joebro story all week, and didn't want to start a thread about it, and this one seemed as good as any, so I reopened it and told my story. My reason for closing this thread in the first place was much weaker than the reasons for closing other threads. True, the thread shouldn't have been started in the first place. But since it was I figured it was a good enough place for my story, I reopened it. And it goes to prove the point of the story - ya can't please nobody none of the time, so you might as well do what you think is the right thing to do. -Joe Offer- 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: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:30 PM If it were not for the interventions of Mr. Joe Offer and the kind benevolent prescence of Mr. Dick Greenhouse....
Mr. MAX would have flushed my prescence with the twist of wrist.
(Well Mr. Max tried a couple of times - but I stuck like a triple-flushing-turd to the toilet-bowl. Thank You ALL
While I miss some old friends I offended (Mr. Seed etc) - in the old-Darwinian-days - you fought hard for a piece of turf....and the board, with its laize-faire approach was leaning towards counter-religions.
Mr. Shambles - if you read this post....stop complaining and START researching - post positive song threads....make additions....record what you find in local yard-sales......DRIVE THE HEATHENS from these shores of folk/blues traditions.
Sincerely,
Inch by inch...over the past four years the umbelical-imbiciles have retreated into their ice-landic woes. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Big Mick Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:58 PM No contest there. If it were my call, it would be thus. Jeri, got any toilet paper? We have an extra pile. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,observer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:21 PM Well, let's see... Which would I prefer? a) a mudcat without The Shambles, or b) a mudcat without Joe Offer? Choice (a) would improve mudcat, and Choice (b) would be disastrous No contest is it??? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 PM I dunno. Jeri's post works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:33 PM the trolls are getting desperate! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:51 PM Ah, Rottweiler Jeri surfaces to protect her Mudcat knights in shining armor... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:24 PM Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this<is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else<to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:14 PM Shambles- you should know by now that what the originator WANTS is seldom relevant to the life of a thread 'round these parts.... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:00 PM Shambles, the thread HAD been closed. I don't know who did it, but I'm fairly sure Joe was the one who re-opened it so he could post his message at 4:42. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:53 PM As this thread looks as if it not going deleted or closed (as was the originator's request) and it looks to be the only thread that will be safe from imposed deletion or closure by our volunteers – perhaps a little more explanation is required. I have no objection to Joe Offer or any other poster. I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues. However it may appear – I do try not make any public personal judgements and try very hard not to respond in kind to the many I do receive. The latter is not too difficult. So despite the impression that may be given - I do not see our forum as a place where judging the worth – or the right of fellow posters to post what they wish to - is to be encouraged - as all are welcome to post equally. Judging what a post says and deciding whether to respond or not – is enough judgement already. We all like to gossip about and judge others but very few of us like to be gossiped about and judged ourselves. If we indulge in these things in public (on our forum) – chances are we will find ourselves judged and gossiped about in return –sometimes not very politely. And we respond and so on………. Sometimes it appears that all this judgement is encouraged by the example currently being set. I fear that a thread title on our forum like 'Objection to …. ……' will only further encourage the idea that our forum is about posting personal judgements (good or bad) about fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM Dan, we could kick that one around for hours, and I think we'd have a few tales to tell each other. Open Mike would have a few to add I'm sure. Keep safe. BM |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: DOpfer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:00 PM Off thread: I don't know about the main part of this thread, but about what brucie brought up, I believe that firefighters and police are probably two of the most second guessed professions where people's lives are at stake. Do people really think we WANT to let that building burn, or that the low water pressure is OUR fault? And exactly what would THEY do that would have a DIFFERENT outcome? (I've actually asked that when my chief scolded me for my attack tactics. And police? Couldn't pay me enough! Sorry for the off-thread ventin, but brucie's blurb struck a cord. (there cord, is that close enough of a music reference for the forum?) (;D> Thanks, DanO |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alba Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM I object to Joe Offer being to objected to.... The objection is to what exactly? Oh never mind. Joe....I reject the objection to you regardless of it's objectivity. Sometimes you can't do anything right when attempting to do the right thing as someone, somewhere will see it as the wrong thing in their book... As to the Confession Session in the Open Forum....hey if it works for someone...should make for an interesting thread...LOL Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM Oh Ebbie...........I rather think your leg is being pulled. But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Ebbie Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM "who on earth are you to think you have the right to question their judgement? They do the job, just as the person who makes the decision for your country does.....Let them do their job...to the best of their ability..." Georgiansilver I was with you, Mike, until you got to this point. I not only do not object to Joe Offer but I feel gratitude and trust toward him. However, if you extend the subject to include those who "make the decisions for our country" - WRONG. It is our responsibility to question what they do in our name. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:34 PM No. I have no objection to Joe, or the job he is doing. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Deckman Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM Joe ... how does it feel to be treated as an OBJECT!! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:20 PM I object to any objections to Joe Offer! Don Firth |
| Share Thread: |