 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: harpgirl Date: 03 May 05 - 04:47 PM I agree with KimC. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D Date: 02 May 05 - 03:50 PM BTW---100 |
|
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. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 03:34 PM If you missed all that (in addition to missing the message-retitling feature discussed elsewhere), all these years, perhaps you might want to consider that not everything about Joe's leadership is or has been as you have thought. Susan - Obviously not - I certainly missed the point and the process by which any poster was appointed to be or appointed themselves to be our leader....I still thought Max was our leader... The point about indexing is the same point about our volunteers offering to protect us from abusive postings, spam and the Black Death etc. It all sounds very reasonable but all it ends up doing in practice is limiting the ordinary poster's freedoms and allowing some people to impose their taste upon the freely given contibutions of others - without their knowledge or consent and as a matter now of routine. Mainly - it would seem - because they want to and now feel qualified to sit in judgement on the worth of others. Perhaps indexing and the changing titles is fine - however I do not see much wrong with the search facilities here - as a means of finding things. But 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? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: M.Ted Date: 02 May 05 - 03:02 PM Good. But you should have chosen between "Is that better?" and Am I learning?" rather than using them both. Brevity is....well you know-- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: wysiwyg Date: 02 May 05 - 02:57 PM Shambles, maybe you were not active at Mudcat during the time period when Joe began indexing and consolidating. As I recall, it was a time when many then-active Mudcatters were noticing that after a few years of Forum posts had piled up, it was getting harder and harder to find things. I know he started doing it just after I finished a very long project on JUST ONE SONG, trying to sort out the mess of posts and cross-posts and thread-drifted contributions about a Cape Breton song-- sorting out how many actually-different songs there were that people tended to confuse with each other; sources, etc. I remember thinking at the time he started sorting the threads a bit, "Wow, that would make life a lot easier, and I'd never have to waste time doing THAT again!" It wasn't even a song I cared about personally-- just a response to a very, very confused song request I decided to try to answer. Also, when I first worked on the spirituals, the old search process involved reading through sometimes a hundred or more old threads to see if a song I was looking for was even MENTIONED, much less posted! This also changed for the better while I worked on the project, thanks to Joe's creativity in tackling the problem, and the enthusiastic response of forum members as he introduced it. And again, I was really happy to see Mudcat evolve towrd better organization. It was part of the culture of the community that indexing was widely seen as a good thing, and Joe was quite open about how he was going to go about it. No one pulled a fast one. The solutions that emerge at Mudcat can only emerge when there is enough hindsight, enoug time passed, that one can see what the problem is and how it can best be solved to suit the needs of the people active at Mudcat. The problems and the solutions often surface when a number of people begin to say, "I'm trying to follow the suggestions y'all gave on how to use these resources, but it isn't working for me because xxxxxxxxx." This continues into present time-- people make suggestions, they are discussed, the tech side is considered, and eventually something is tried to see if it makes things better. Generally, they do make things better. I know of one change under consideration, for instance, that a lot of people might really like-- having the Blickifier on the personal page like it is on the forum threads. (How many times have I wanted to send a link via PM and wondered if I screwed it up making it myself?) If you missed all that (in addition to missing the message-retitling feature discussed elsewhere), all these years, perhaps you might want to consider that not everything about Joe's leadership is or has been as you have thought. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 01:59 PM What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him. *Smiles* Perhaps the anonyomous volunteer who post editorial comments in red and has just imposed their judgement on Donuel's questions (twice) - was not Joe Offer? In that case - I am sure that it will be re-instated as soon as Joe wakes-up......And then deleted again... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Donuel Date: 02 May 05 - 01:45 PM Likes MG? sort of. It is just to cover a spoof. The only post I have ever had erased however (today) was 3 questions regarding MG. Deleted 3 "questions" because they were a personal attack. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 01:44 PM When Gargoyle tells you that you are a pathetic loser, or when Martin calls you a leftist anti-semite, you know they cared enough to read your post. Take a lesson from them. Ted - you are pathetic loser and a leftist anti-semite. Is that better? Am I learning? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: M.Ted Date: 02 May 05 - 01:23 PM What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him. Shambles, I am sure that he doesn't dislike you as a person, because Joe, as a good Christian, knows that we all have our flaws and are all God's Children--it's just that love them or hate them(and usually it is a mixture of both), Gargoyle and Martin both get to the point, and get off to let others take their best shot. You don't. YOU JUST GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON-- I try to read your posts, I really do, but it is duller, and less rewarding than reading the phone book. Try participating in a discussion, instead of just pasting the same tired volumes. When Gargoyle tells you that you are a pathetic loser, or when Martin calls you a leftist anti-semite, you know they cared enough to read your post. Take a lesson from them. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 01:19 PM Its end can only be hastened by an agenda of constant harrassment. Then tell our volunteers to stop this constant harrasment......... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Donuel Date: 02 May 05 - 11:12 AM I've played the internet for over 10 years now. I have seen several perfectly good forums brought to a grinding halt by frustrating the administrator that did all the hard work of diplomacy. Even the most even temperments have their breaking point. Predicting the the end of the Mudcat forum is a now brainer. Nothing lasts forever. Its end can only be hastened by an agenda of constant harrassment. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Juan P-B Date: 02 May 05 - 11:01 AM Have I missed something whilst I was away ? Was there an offer on Joe (Buy one Joe, get one free)?? If so what was it and why did anyone object to said offer? Are people so cynical about offers these days? I once saw a poster which said "Free Nelson Mandela" and underneath someone had written 'with every 5 gallons' Will there be another Joe offer?? Juan P-B |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Amos Date: 02 May 05 - 08:59 AM Shambles, Wakey, wakey, pal!! Joe pulled your leg and you treated it with the same monotone victimized byzantine introspection as you treat everything else. For you to think he was serious is indicative of a serious failure to discriminate between reality and fiction. I think you and Martin should take this dialogue off line until you can achieve a consensus about how bad things are, and then write up your findings in a concise, one-time only report on the catastrophic flaws of the Mudcat and its participants. Between his upside-down political views and your victim-oriented protestations there ought to be enough for a couple of pages worth if you edit it carefully. A |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 02 May 05 - 08:09 AM Our volunteers were chosen because they represent the majority here. What offends them, offends most of us. You trouble makers are always chirpping about "Free Speech", well, how about majority rules? MG, you say you don't believe in debates because they accomplish nothing; ok, so what does name calling accomplish? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 04:01 AM The current 'system' is not open, fair or have any clear objective. Impositions of personal taste are made by our volunteers upon the contributions of fellow posters (mostly anonymously) - in a inconsistent and arbitary fashion. The result of which is that - each individual impostion has to be defended every time it is questioned - on it merits. And everyone is confused. All of this has been going on and on for years on our forum. With those who fall victim posting to question these actions and those who are fortunate enough not to be the victim (yet) - blindly supporting all the justifcation given and all the susequent excuses given for the mistakes made by our volunteers. Perhaps it is time for a change (on purely practical grounds) - for unless there is a change to a more open, fair and consistently objective approach to censorship - all of this division - is just set to grind on and on for years to come. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autoshamspawjoe Date: 02 May 05 - 03:39 AM 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. Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse. As site owner Max to me is the one GOD. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals? Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post. What appears to have happened and encouraged over time - is that although the house is big enough to accommodate all the parties - some posters seem to insist that the party that is not to their taste and which no one is forcing them to attend - is shut-down..... You dumb aardvark crossed with a one testicled baboon, try to engange your brain once in a while.
|
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 02:31 AM So, I'll still have time to annoy Shambles and defy his rules. -Joe Offer- Is that really what all this is about for you? If it is - we can perhaps see the size of the problem. The question is - how much more will you be prepared to sacrifice the basic freedoms of posters on OUR forum - to that end? Unlike you - I have no wish to and can't now make any 'rules' to impose upon you or anyone else "to defy". I do make suggestions to try and ensure that all the 'rules' you now seem hellbent on imposing upon Mudcatters apply equally to everyone. However, you reject any suggestions that may involve you and your volunteers having to also be seen to be subject to these same 'rules' or that require you or volunteers to be seen poenly to following any 'rules'. All of this because you wish to annoy and defy me........? Why...? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 10:27 PM I think you have it Jon! Now just let them all talk to each other and it will be the perfect thread!!!LOLOL!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 May 05 - 10:03 PM Hey, Joe: I bet you'd do a great job taking the offering.. Eat your heart out, Art.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autoharpy Date: 01 May 05 - 05:12 PM Oh but FatherJoebro....I do think you are wise, kind, gentle, and remarkably good looking.....and preachy!!!! I didn't say boring! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Once Famous Date: 01 May 05 - 04:24 PM Big Mick, I don't believe in hard debate. It's a waste of time here and proves nothing. And Jeri, I seem to get my point across just fine. I can't help it if you have trouble with interpretations or just don't want to hear it because perhaps it offends you. So, my rules and your rules aren't the same. So what? I really don't feel that I have to sugar coat an opinion for you. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 01 May 05 - 03:54 PM "Objections to Joe Offer" I farted in the staffroom on Friday and many people objected. Does this thread title mean that they should send their objections to you? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 01 May 05 - 03:52 PM "Joe Offer, Lay Minister at Large" This could be a sensational TV show. The oomph of "Touched by an Angel" and the pognency, poignency, poinensy, poginancy, touchingnessedness of "Little House on the Prairie". A mild-mannered fellow named Joe Offer stumbles into a telephone booth while talking with his friend, Robin. He changes into priestly garb and ministers to the angst-filled folks in the flock (notice the alliteration; that rolled off my fingers onto the keyboard; no applause necessary; it's a gift) while simultaneously attending to his responsibilities on the 'cat. This has possibilities. Real possibilities. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 05 - 01:26 PM Aw, gee, Harpy. I thought you thought I was wise and kind and gentle and all that good stuff, and remarkably good-looking. Now I think you think I'm boring. Say it isn't so! -Joebro- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Autoharpy Date: 01 May 05 - 01:18 PM Shambles is less offensive than Gibbon. The cloneheads should go after him. And fatherJoeautobro, , we better not be subjected to paragraphs from your sermons. You're preachy enough as it is! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Autoharpy Date: 01 May 05 - 01:16 PM Shambles is less offensive than Gibbon. The clonheads should go after him. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autospaw Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM You are acting like a lesser spotted sea slug, get a friggin life. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autospaw Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM You are acting like a brain dead zombie, try to engange your brain once in a while. |
| Share Thread: |
