HI Max: What about Shambles requests?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:52 PM

"Can we all just agree to return to being – 'fellow posters' again – drink the good wine together again and not just be given the dregs and pretend to ourselves that it really tastes just as good as the vintage use to?" The Shambles

I can, if you can, Roger. Let's.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:04 PM

Just because nobody's getting at you doesn't mean you can't feel paranoid if you want to.
G..

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 02:48 PM

Help, help, I'm being opressed!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 02:43 PM

My short, simple answer was totally serious. ~~~yes~~~ means that I, as well as most others, seem to think the editing IS minimal and not troubling.

Bill the answer you gave to the first question you first quoted was plainly absurd. The answer you have just given (above) to your own different question - may be worthy of being taken slightly more seriously by our forum but it was not the answer to the question actually being asked – was it? As quoted by you and then answered by you in the following post……

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 11:34 AM

"Can the ability of these volunteer fellow posters to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission – for purposes only of clarity and 'indexing' – really be described as minimal?"

~~~~yes~~~~
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill If you do seriously expect our forum to accept that you do consider this ABILITY (to impose at will) is the minimum – perhaps you could tell us what you (or we) could possibly consider to be the maximum ABILITY? Perhaps the ABILITY to delete the whole post - before it even gets posted – or the ABILITY to go out and shoot the posters before they can even write it?

The ABILITY for anonymous volunteer posters impose their judgement upon offensive and abusive personal attacks is one thing – the ABILITY to do this when these elements are not a factor cannot be described seriously by anyone – except perhaps Stalin (or Bill D) – as a minimal ability.

That you may consider the current EXERCISE of this ABILITY on our forum is minimal – is one thing but it is not the same thing as saying you consider the ABILTY itself to be minimal. That is what Amos stated. The Clone Department has certain editorial abilities. They are minimal

Should being given the ABILITY to impose your personal judgement upon your fellow posters on our forum - be always recognised as the being given the maximum power possible? That this ABILITY now appears to be thought minimal and taken and exercised so lightly – is a serious concern for any poster who understood that the freedom to have one's words appear as posted on our forum (as long as these words were not offensive etc) was a given right.   

But it only needs one anonymous volunteer fellow to use this ABILITY when it is clearly seen to be personally motivated and selective – to discredit all the good work of our volunteers and the whole credibility of our forum.

A factor made even worse by the automatic justification and defence of this action – mainly by those who feel they will always be safe from such imposition. And just as importantly – the publicly encouraged reaction against any poster who is unfortunate to be subject to it and is foolish enough to request a different approach to be adopted.

Can we all just agree to return to being – 'fellow posters' again – drink the good wine together again and not just be given the dregs and pretend to ourselves that it really tastes just as good as the vintage use to?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 01:21 PM

I received a PM today from Roger advising me that I was full of shit.

Amos -

If you are going to go against the convention here of NOT making PMs public - perhaps you could either describe this personal message more accuratly or post it in full.

What I posted privately to Amos - was just what had already been posted publicly in this thread. Which was -

As our nameless guest said.

Martin Gibson would tell you that you are all full of shit.


This in a PM with the title of Smiles - may suggest that Amos has not only lost his sense of humour - but also that what he tries to suggest is the case to our forum - may be just as unreliable as his ability to read his PMs. One ability which I would suggest - has been demonstrated to be 'MINIMAL' *Smiles*

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:49 AM

I personally think that Max is probably laughing his socks off at all Roger's threads, and that is really what we should all be doing.
I bet the < > i / a href and = keys on Roger's keyboard are plumb tuckered out.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:20 AM

gee, I see Roger does not like his rhetorical questions being answered simply!

My short, simple answer was totally serious. ~~~yes~~~ means that I, as well as most others, seem to think the editing IS minimal and not troubling.

I do **NOT** feel I receive special treatment. I try to exercise the restraint necessary to avoid the need for being edited. Try it.

This thread now demonstrates why I said that it would be folly for Max to get into a running debate with Roger about the issue. Shambles simply does not WANT any editing, any anonymity among the editing staff that he doesn't want, or any editing without permission by the editing staff that he doesn't want...etc...

No amount of discussion will change what he wants and doesn't want.

I suggest we just let him type till his fingers are sore, and quit responding unless there is something new.

*gritting my teeth and making resolution*

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:18 AM

Anyone know the old chestnut about the boy who cried 'repression'?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:47 AM

Being FOS for all of us is only a matter of degree and not a matter of being 100%full or 100%empty.

I for one would like edit priviledges since my dyslexia makes it very difficult to write and spell correctly the first time around.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:14 AM

I received a PM today from Roger advising me that I was full of shit.

This was in response, I suppose, to my sarcasm in my last post.

I suppose when passive aggression fails, name-calling is an appropriate response, eh?

In any case, Sham's concerns about being picked on and about the unfairness of it all are no longer my concern IMO he is flailing in a web of his own design and refusing to take the most elementary responsibility for it. I have nothing to add to such a narcissistic viewpoint.


A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:02 AM

Thank you for quoting my post Roger but I can't see what validity it might have in proving you have been picked on unfairly, considering it was a critique of the lax policing of the MG phenomenon and not a complaint about policing of the Mudcat threads in general.
It's no good wasting your verbal diarrhoea on me Roger I can see right through your masochist posturing.
Giok

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 09:36 AM

Hehehe... I just got back from me camp. And this thread is at the top of the BS section.... it is to laugh. Had a lovely time. The neighbours had their annual Games Day and there was a big crowd... even had a hoser all the way from The Big Smoke. Lots of booze and eats of all sorts and great banter and sing alongs around the roasring fire. I went to bed at midnight. The part I most enjoyed was singing on the porch of my camp at 05:10h. I wasn't even yelled at. Most of them had (have?) hangovers.

BTW... I didn't read any more of the posts to this thread.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 09:22 AM

I assure you with all the confidence I can muster, Sham, that if you are being singled out in some way it is directly coupled to the long history you have of upbraiding and calumniating those who are helping. Now I'm being a spin doctor, issit?   Oh and avoiding the issue as well, not addressing points you made, hmmm?

Well, sorry. I do what I can, but I see our time is up. Perhaps next week, eh?

A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 08:35 AM

By the way – In reference to Joe Offer's claim in the above linked post - that I have compared him with Hitler - I put The Shambles - Joe Offer and Hitler in the advance search and the only post that came-up was the following.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 08:08 AM

The (incorrect) assumptions and the pointless personal judgements resulting in the special treatment imposed upon one poster - based on these assumptions - is well demonstrated in this post.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1539530

Please remember - the things referred to in this post are NOT facts. They are just the (perfectly valid) personal views of one fellow poster about another expressed in a conventional post and not made (this time) in a editing comment..

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 07:35 AM

Amos - I asked.

Do you still consider the ability of these volunteer fellow posters to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission – for purposes only of clarity and 'indexing' – really be described as 'minimal'? What more real power over their fellow posters could they possibly require than this?

Amos replied

Yes, I do. What I see is the least effort needed to maintain useability and a minimum of order.

This answer slides from the original assessment of the extent of the ability - by you as minimal – to addressing a different issue entirely and using words that any 'spin doctor' would be proud of. You do not even attempt to explain what – if you consider this ability (to impose at will) is the minimum – what you (or we) could possibly consider to be the maximum…

Perhaps you were originally referring only to the effort required - on the part of those imposing – being and needing to be minimal? This need – not to place too much strain upon our volunteers – looks rapidly to becoming the primary concern on our forum…….

However, this is what you said - and which I have aked you to clarify.

The Clone Department has certain editorial abilities. They are minimal.


Why you see the various daemons you do in the same objective phenomena is, I think, a personal issue, not a community one.

That may well be the case – but you may agree that it takes - two-to tango. The assumptions made by certain volunteer fellow posters that cause the selective imposition of their personal judgement upon my contributions and not upon those of others – is defended publicly to this community as being impartial and NOT personally motivated. When it is obvious – to anyone who examines the evidence provided – that this judgement and editing is selective and personally motivated. That makes it very much a community issue and one that is not address and solved – will result in there being no more community.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 01:27 AM

"Martin Gibson would tell you that you are all full of shit."

Martin at least had the balls to sign his name.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:54 PM

Roger:

Yes, I do. What I see is the least effort needed to maintain useability and a minimum of order.

I don't know which posters you are talking about. I usually try to think of the issiues BEFORE I post. For example, I try to put clear, unambiguous titles on any thread I start. But I have every confidence that if I blow the rules by mistake, I can count on Joe to call me off base if I am, and I just say, Aw, heck; okay.

Why you see the various daemons you do in the same objective phenomena is, I think, a personal issue, not a community one.

I have nothing to add.

Come to think of it I already said that!

A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:24 PM

And for once he would be right.

What's the point of this thread? Or of Roger's obsession?

No, don't answer that. Please. Just save the bandwidth for things that matter.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:20 PM

Martin Gibson would tell you that you are all full of shit.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 03:49 PM

~~~~yes~~~~

No Bill - minimal or none at all - just describes the amount of imposition your posts are likely to receive currently - no matter how personally abusive they may be.

Amos says - All posters are equal. But some posts are not.

I think Bill D's plainly quite absurd answer demonstrates that some posters are considered and consider themselves now - to be a lot more equal than other posters on our forum. They certainly feel that their posts will always be free of the imposition that they smugly consider would be 'minimal' when imposed upon someone else.

Amos - As it was you who used the word minimal - perhaps we may get a fair and more sensible answer from you? One that we will never receive from Bill D? Although I would not bet too much hard cash on it.

Do you still consider the ability of these volunteer fellow posters to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission – for purposes only of clarity and 'indexing' – really be described as 'minimal'? What more real power over their fellow posters could they possibly require than this?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 03:35 PM

Sure is hot here in North Carolina today. Think I'll join the hampsters behind that speedboat.

Janie

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 12:06 PM

Well, why not? Probably makes as much sense as anything else here.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 12:02 PM

100!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 12:01 PM

and.........

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 11:34 AM

"Can the ability of these volunteer fellow posters to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission – for purposes only of clarity and 'indexing' – really be described as minimal?"



~~~~yes~~~~

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:36 AM

I have seen a great many posts in my life, and they are clearly not all equal. My neighbour has three that are falling down, sadly in need of repair.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:30 AM

all posters would then again be seen to be receiving the equal treatment that has been customary (until recently) on our forum?

I am pretty sure that is more or less the case now, Shambo. THis desire for equal treatment of all posters is a granfalloon. All posters are equal. But some posts are not.


A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 09:29 AM

Looks like somebody's name has been added to the 'Most favoured' list. He he
G..

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 09:11 AM

Here's an alternative notion.

Leave Max out of it.

He's nobody's Dad around here, kids. We can quibble all day if we want -- I sure don't -- or we can find a reasonable compromise.

ASSUMING such a thing is possible.

Amos when the assumption is made that the problem is a non problem or it is only one poster that is the problem – posters could just ignore it. But when the solution is seen by our volunteers to post and encourage endless personal judgements – abusive personal attacks – foul language, name calling, threats, and assessments of every aspect of the perssonality of a fellow poster who they have never met. A poster who does not respond in kind but just tries to express and evidences their personal view on a public discussion forum set aside on Max's site – for that purpose. And when very few poster actually address the reality of the problem – there is very little chance of us all ever finding any real solution to a very real problem. For encouraging all this personal judgement and resulting division - IS the problem.

Amos - I welcome your late arrival to making some attempt at a solution to all this division - a solution that is more than possible – where there is a will. For a solution and an end to all this personal judgement - is not only possible – it is vital. But before much positive input can be added by our forum – the answers to certain question need to be openly provided to our forum as secrecy in these matters only leads to damaging speculation.

The Clone Department has certain editorial abilities. They are minimal. Evidently, Shambles feels they should be nil -- that only "fellow posters" in our great cybercommune should have the power to allow any changes.

1. Who are 'The Clone Department' now?

2. How many of them are there now?

3. Is it really so helpful or proportionate now - for any of these fellow posters to have the choice of being anonymous?

Amos –

Can the ability of these volunteer fellow posters to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission – for purposes only of clarity and 'indexing' – really be described as minimal? What more real power over their fellow posters could they possibly require than this?

My view is not as you state – it is that many changes of course can be made to any contribution– with the originator's permission or possible at their request. But where the concern is only one of clarification - and stated to be in order to be helpful to our forum's readers – is it really now proportionate for such changes be imposed upon the words of our forum's contributors – without their knowledge or permission? When the attempt to always obtain permission first would be so easy to undertake and all posters would then again be seen to be receiving the equal treatment that has been customary (until recently) on our forum?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 10:03 PM

Oops... youse 'owe' him.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 10:02 PM

Max don't owe anyone any explanation for anything, even though most everything has already been beat to death. And he don't owe anyone shit in the first place.... conversely... youse him.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 09:30 PM

What is his responsibility, CH? To act to intercede over Shambo's discontent? Why would he?

A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 09:27 PM

" Leave Max out of it."

Bull... it's HIS message board... That MAKES it his responsibility whether he wants to acknowledge it or not...

I'll tell ya, if I was him, Mudcat would be the best kept secret on the whole internet...

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 08:23 PM

Hey Amos.....How about if we ask Joe or a clone to delte and move to an archived thread, ANY Shambles post that contains no new info.....LOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 08:04 PM

Here's an alternative notion.

Leave Max out of it.

He's nobody's Dad around here, kids. We can quibble all day if we want -- I sure don't -- or we can find a reasonable compromise.

ASSUMING such a thing is possible.

The Clone Department has certain editorial abilities. They are minimal. Evidently, Shambles feels they should be nil -- that only "fellow posters" in our great cybercommune should have the power to allow any changes.

This of course would defeat the purpose of having such authority, which was made necessary by wicked anti-social shitheads in the past. It is the anti-social, above all else who have changed the mood and flavor here, not the volunteers. The problem was not created by the volunteers, it was created by juveniles and a**holes. Or by spammers, who will never approve of having their threads deleted or marked as unwanted commercial spam. So the notion of asking people if you can edit their stuff is totally extraneous to the reason for needing to do any editing in those categories -- of course their harmful intentions are such that they would decline. IF they were sane enough to accept such a modification, they wouldn't be writing scurrilous invalidations

Correcting typos? Adding a prefix to a thread name? These are NOT SUBSTANTIVE FACTORS. They improve communication EVEN if they annoy the original author who WAS NOT RESPONSIVE to a common good through some sort of oversight, or error, or unawareness. Pride of authorship is one thing, if you have written carefully and well, but thread pre-fixes are below the par and should not even be noticed. This isn't the Library of Congress, for cry-i -- it's a voluntary discussion site!

So how do we bridge this insistent, droning gap?

1. Well, we could make it personal and just give Sham his own unedited thread. I don't think that is his point though.

2. Or we could just say -- to hell with it, the present standard is good enough for 99.5% of us, let it ride as it is. That has certainly been my feeling so far.

3. We could tabulate a vote to formalize the process, assuming we could persuade Joe and Max -- who have the actual power over the matter at hand -- to accede to such a decision.

4. We could ignore it and hope it dies out. Just paint it black and close our ears.

5. We could articulate the exact protocols and formal specification of when any post or thread may or may not be changed and by whom. That has already been pretty well tried in the FAQ.

6. We could say, "This is not a community under law, but a community under the free willing participation of anyone who participates" and on that basis let the current situation continue indefinitely, being shaped by its participants, of which I will no longer be one as far as this subject goes; expecting it will sooner or later evolve one way or the other -- toward understanding or toward oblivion. That's kind of the default value. If that's the one we go with, as has been the case hitherto, I only hope it evolves sooner rather than later.
Unless something new gets said on it, I think I have plumb run out of comments to make!


A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:37 PM

Here's hopin'...

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:32 PM

I tell ya' guys, I'm usually really good at causing a thread to wither away to nuthin'. Happens more times than not when I post to a thread. Hope I haven't lost my touch....

J

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:30 PM

And don't forget to check out the cool recipes in the Mater's and Squash thread below. Oh, and Dulcinea--you can stuff your bra with ripe tomatoes to carry off the part. They feel almost real;^)

Janie

(Let's see....I am being irreverent, or simply irrelevent.......hmmmm.........gotta' go back to school on that one.)

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:22 PM

I sure hope they don't get you to write up the Policies & Procedures manual for Mudcat, Shambles. Your circular thinking makes me dizzy.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:11 PM

Harpgirl - in your own terms, since you don't like it, why don't you eff off? Apart from Roger, the rest of us seem to like MC just fine. But, I suppose, since we're bored & fed up with Roger's mindless repetitive clockwork drivel, we must also be soulless mannequins under the control of the evil empire? Right? {Rollseyes} (P.S. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, & if you stop being defensive & sensitive on someone else's behalf, you might just start to see how silly you look).

While I am not sure that it is a good idea to adopt the questionable methods of those who abuse others in such language - that is not to say that I have not been sorely tempted to do the same. But the idea that I (and others) may not like the Mudcat is plainly absurd.

Cheap and corked plonk - may taste OK to those who have only ever been served up with this - it will hardly be drinkable to those who have been used to the real thing. Perhaps we will all be able to taste the real vintage stuff again? Perhaps then we will not take it for granted but cherish it this time.

But if you are bored - simply don't read it. End of.........

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:10 PM

"This is the plainest sort of passive aggression, hiding behind a very thin veneer of rationality which while rationalized is not actually rational, IMHO"

Could be Amos....Could be. Or else he's just a broke-dick mamalucca contemplating his own asshole.

Ya' know he IS so much fun to "abuse" because it is just that.......fun!!! He has been carrying on this tirade for years and admits he will not quit until it all goes HIS way. So what the fuck........Might as well kick him in the balls.....if you can find any.

Spaw

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 07:01 PM

The use of the expression "generally control" is inaccurate and designed only to stir others up.

There has been no indication any control except the most ordinary cosmetic and qutidien matters. Naming a thread a Song Challenege in which the author invites others to write a song is so normal as to be sleep-inducing. Yet here, in Wonderland, it is like the little Eat Me cake which blows things up to Brobdingnagian scale.

This is the plainest sort of passive aggression, hiding behind a very thin veneer of rationality which while rationalized is not actually rational, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:54 PM

Scotty--forget that last request. I kinda like this craziness!

Janie

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:52 PM

And what happens when he misses the windmill and slams into Big M- er-I mean-Dulcinea? Do the jaw pouches offer enough protection? Offer? Did I say Offer? Did you say that windmill is named in honor of Joe Offer?

I am soooo confuuuuuuused! Beam me up, Scotty.

J.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:51 PM

Where do you want help shambles?

If it is over an opion given from Max to clarify matters, I think I've reached the point where I would support you. Although I'd still think you pretty spineless for not at least attempting to PM him first.

If on the other hand for example your point is over what I can only read as Mudcat's (ultimately Max's) position over indexing and moving, I would be in an impossible position as if my view over anything counted, I would support the position and openly say I do move, combine. etc. elsewhere...

That said, I'm not convinced any debate opening

"Joe's wish now to 'index', 'consolidate' 'prefix', 'clarify' and generally try to control the postings of others"

Is worthy of thought. A slight rewording even to

"Mudcat's wish now to 'index', 'consolidate' 'prefix', 'clarify' and generally try to control the postings of others"

might (and I'm not sure it would be) worthy of debate for some for gathering of opinion.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:43 PM

I did not read your post Shambo. I was petting my hamster. Ya gotta have priorities, eh?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:41 PM

Seriously Mr. Paramedic...........I was just sitting at my computer reading along and suddenly the image of a friend dressed as Dulcinea came over me and I seem to have blacked out........Why is the room rotating?.........No I don't do drugs although I'm now considering it..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:38 PM

Dear Max,

    Is it true that William Shatner tilts at windmills, riding a chimpanzee, wearing lace panties, a beer in one hand, with a hamster jammed in his front shirt pocket, jaw pouches full inflated to serve as an airbag? And can you confirm the wild rumor that you recently 'mooned' a certain Mudcatter?

    Answer quickly please. Inquiring minds and the Society for the Ethical Treatment of Hamsters want to know.

Janie

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:35 PM

Then start your own message board shambles...

and stay there